It is a pity that Senator Manning was not here to listen to the litany. At the expense of boring the House, I will begin again. I mentioned, among others, Deputies John Bruton, Garret FitzGerald, Peter Barry, Bernard Allen, Gay Mitchell, John Kelly, Chris O'Malley et al, as well as Mr. Peter Sutherland, who I believe has some rapport with the Fine Gael Party as well.
The intention in the motion is to find out whether the party in this House as led by Senator Manning support this attitude and whether also the Government still stand by their commitment to our traditional neutrality policy. I am flinging down here the gauntlet. I do not regard neutrality as a sacred cow. I am inviting the Seanad and, indeed, the public at large to commence this debate in the period leading up to the European elections where, undoubtedly, it will become an issue. The young voters particularly whose future, after all, it is that we are debating when we are talking about impending European integration with its political and military connotations, are entitled to know beyond equivocation where the party politicians stand on this issue. I hope the question will be well and truly put and well and truly debated in the next few months.
Let me comment on the motion. It has been phrased fairly carefully. The word "so-called" is very deliberately used there, because one of the things which confuse people is the notion of European defence. The Europe we are talking about, of course, is only a part of western Europe, which is why I have dubbed it "so-called" European. It is so-called also because the question immediately arises, defence against whom? Who is going to attack western Europe? What is the evidence that the European Community is now, or will be as far as the foreseeable future, under attack? The whole concept is a very vague one, indeed, which is why, leading on to the second part of the motion. I think the Government should then reaffirm unequivocally the national policy of non-participation in military alliances. It is a national policy. Some doubt is being continually cast on this. People have said neutrality is not really a policy, it is not a principle, it is only an expedient which arose out of a historical set of circumstances and it has also become customary for the attackers to bring into question our whole policy of neutrality during World War II. In other words, by attacking the morality and the propriety of our wartime neutrality they hope to cast doubts on its contemporary wisdom as well.
It is true that in its origins neutrality was in part at least an expedient. No historian can put his hand on his heart and say that neutrality is an integral part of Irish national philosophy. Neutrality in its origins meant staying out of England's wars. That is what the Irish Neutrality League meant in 1914 and that great demonstration of neutrality, the anti-conscription campaign of 1918, was also a refusal to commit itself to England's wars. Nonetheless, in part at least, any student of Eamon de Valera's political philosophy must realise that for him, though he never articulated neutrality's high principle, it was far more — and became far more than an expedient.
An historian would have to conclude that by 1945 Irish neutrality, however much it acted as a national cohesive at that time, in world terms was isolationist. It was anti-partitionist in origin and it was even to some extent perhaps anti-British. It could be regarded as escapist but let us remember that it developed into something else in the late fifties and sixties, so that neutrality has now come to mean-especially for young people who are involved in various peace movements — a role in the world which may be pretentious at times, we may be, in Skibbereen Eagle fashion, over-estimating our importance but our neutrality in its modern form has tried to be outgoing, positive, internationalist, anti-nuclear and pacifist. In fact, it has become something quite different from what it was during World War II. The only link is one in name, a certain continuity. In other words, our non-military stance today in international affairs is based on a feeling that we have a special rapport with the wide world, not just with the European Community, that we have a special standing in areas of the world partly because of our colonial past and partly because since Independence, we have not participated for whatever reasons in military alliances.
In short, what we have is something very valuable in terms of our personality as a nation, in terms of our psychology, and even commercially the perception of Ireland as a neutral country is good for our trade and our commercial prospects in areas like the Middle East and in the states of Africa where, for example, Aer Lingus have a very profitable arrangement with various African states on the grounds that they see Ireland and the national airline as part of this image.
I am suggesting that neutrality, which is a very unfortunate word, a very unattractive word and a very inadequate word — that is part of the reason its opponents can snipe at us — is a national policy, is a traditional policy and that we must not abandon it as we move forward to the new Community in 1992 and after. Our European partners have no right to demand that we abandon it if they are honest and serious in their assertion that the new Europe will cherish a rich diversity of cultures, attitudes and philosophies.
Without wanting to prolong the history lesson, I would like to remind the House that the new neutrality, the contemporary neutrality, is something we can be proud of in the international way. It has evolved like a butterfly, it has struggled out of the chrysalis of the old neutrality. It is a complete misconception to think that our neutrality now is anti-British, that our neutrality now is because of Partition. It began like that but for anyone to think that that is the rationale of it now is a complete misconception.
I was astonished to read very recently that the Belgian Foreign Minister, Mr. Leo Tindemans, said Ireland was not neutral in any active way and that Irish neutrality is more an anti-British attitude. I cannot give you a precise date for that but it was sometime in November last year. If Mr. Leo Tindemans has a totally wrong idea of Irish neutrality — and he is one of the great persons of the new Community of Europe — then it seems to me that the same misconception must be shared by a great number of mainland European statesmen. If it is so shared, is it not the fault of our Irish politicians in Europe who have not bothered informing the Europeans about the proper philosophy of Irish neutrality and the reason we cherish it so much, not as a begrudging negative anti-British attitude? Is it that they are not concerned to explain or that they do not know themselves the present position of our policy?
During the referendum on the Single European Act which took place nearly two years ago, many of us were very concerned that the Act would mean a further erosion of our neutrality policy, especially Title III, which seemed to many of us incongruously lumped with the economic part of the Act. We were reassured again and again during that campaign that there was no danger to our neutrality and no question of a defence commitment. I do not recall during that campaign the Fine Gael politicians, who have since then been so vocal in their opposition to neutrality, being so explicit in their condemnation of it. The European Commission issued a booklet at that time explaining the Single European Act in which it gave assurances in reply to a question. I quote from a booklet called The Facts — The Single European Act published by the Commission of the European Community in Dublin. The question was if the Act would affect Ireland's neutrality? The answer which follows in effect says no. It said:
Successive Irish Governments have found the formula devised to accommodate Ireland's special position perfectly acceptable and there is nothing new in the Act that would change the situation.
That is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of Irish neutrality from the Commission but, nonetheless, a fairly clear statement that the Act was not any threat to Irish neutrality. More important, the Government issued other reassurances. I quote from two publications. A fairly lengthy quotation is warranted because of the importance of the issue. One is The Single European Act — An Explanatory Guide which assures us in section 4 (6) that the Single European Act poses no threat to Ireland's neutrality. Even more positively, in another Government information booklet in May 1987 —The Single European Act, a different one from the blue covered one, perhaps a development of it, we are assured that Title III does not affect Ireland's long established policy of military neutrality. This document goes on to state that “there is no conflict between our policy of military neutrality and our full and active membership of the European Community. Statements and fears to the contrary have no basis in reality and serve only to obscure and detract from our national interests and objectives as a full and committed member of the European Community.”
What I am asking the Government is whether the statements I have read constitute Government policy at present? Is it still unequivocal Government policy that there is no threat and no intention of altering the policy of military neutrality? What do the repeated assertions of Fianna Fáil Government Ministers over the decades — from Seán Lemass on through Dr. Hillery, on through Mr. Lynch — mean when they said that although we are going to be neutral, somehow in the far distant future our neutrality will be gently converted into participation? That is the suggestion.
To be fair to Fine Gael Deputies, they at least are straightforward in their attacks on neutrality. What worries me is that the Government have this long term vision in their heads; that not now perhaps, but sometime in the not so distant future, when European Union becomes more realisable, we will think again. Where do the Government stand on that one?
One of the things that appals me in the statements which are made from time to time by various anti-neutrality politicians is that they suggest that not only do we owe it to our partners to sing for our supper, as it were putting it crudely, but it will be profitable for us to turn from being a peace-keeping nation without any military or defence structures and to go in for wholesale investment in defence structures. The job creation prospects of military development have been mentioned by, among others, Deputy Bernard Allen and the other day by Dr. Edward Walsh, President of the University of Limerick — designate. It seems to indicate an appalling bankruptcy of economic thought to suggest that this is the way to job creation — through the manufacture of lethal weapons and the exploitation of the threat of mass destruction. That is what it means. That is what offering the prospect of employment based on NATO plants or new European defence plants means. It is very sad, if not an almost obscene, bankruptcy of thought on the employment question.
We are also being told, that since we are the only non-military pact member of the Community that we do not belong to the fast track nations. Dr. Walsh upbraided us for not being as forward looking as France and Germany in this regard. What I am suggesting is that all this thinking, or what passes for thinking, and this new attack on our traditional policy is outmoded, misguided, half-baked and dates from the fifties. It is old Cold War thinking, not readjusted, and I am surprised that such a lively and vigorous mind as that of Deputy Garret FitzGerald is still stuck in the ice of the Cold War of the fifties.
When we are told that we should contribute to European defence what we are actually being told is that we should get ready to defend part of western Europe against another part of Europe, which is not even threatening it, that we must be ready to spill European blood of one variety or another. That is what is meant by saying we should take our part in the defence structures of a new Europe. It is particularly inappropriate during a period of remarkable European and world détente with the Soviet bloc being liberalised before our eyes, disintegrating in its monolithic tradition before our eyes. What we need surely is more disengagement and more peace, not contributing our little mite to a Europe already bristling with death-dealing weapons.
Our new cold warriors seem to have got it all wrong. Is it possible that they are motivated by a revamped colonial desire to please our new masters, tugging the forelock to the goodies-dispensing gentry in Europe? Is that part of the new psychology? Instead, it seems to me we should be enlightening our European partners about our neutrality, telling them it is a good thing for Europe that we should have a non-military tradition, that it will enrich the image of Europe in the world at large, that it has to do with the image of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals rather than any sectional and capitalist vision of a part of Europe.
Since we can all talk freely about the future Europe, about which we know nothing as yet, let me now say that the only Europe which will get my allegiance is all of Europe, and no politician should set bounds to the march of Europe — to adapt a famous phrase. These attackers of our neutrality ignore the fact that our foreign policy is part of our ethos, is part of our very being as an independent State. Whatever imperfections and whatever disappointments we have had as an independent State I suggest that the vision of neutrality I have outlined is one of our fulfilments, and we should not abandon it. We should bring it with us to Europe and give it to Europe. We should also remember — indeed the topicality of this motion is further underlined by what I am going to say — that Austria is now knocking on the European Community door and is, in effect saying "we are neutral, we have to be neutral by international obligations but we want to be part of Europe as well". We are not alone, we are not the eccentric, maverick, irresponsible member state that some of the opponents of our neutrality would like us to be.
Let the Government reassure us that peace and disarmament will continue to be the marks of our distinctive foreign policy. Let us take it further. I see no reason we should not engage fully in the Councils of the European Community instead of absenting ourselves from dinner from time to time when difficult matters are being discussed. Why not stay there and say to the Germans that their dream of a unification is a grandiose one which is not in the best interests of Europe or tell the French — and the British if it comes to that — that their post imperial arrogance with their independent nuclear strikes is not in the best interests of Europe. We should be in there exercising the voice of a small country.
On this motion I ask the Government not to be in the slightest apologetic about a national policy which conforms to our best tradition. After all, Fianna Fáil claim to be the particular custodian of neutrality. Let them give a confident answer, loud and clear, to the new cold warriors among us, the new gaiscígh, an Irish word which I might translate as bellicose yuppies. Let the Government tell them, as their predecessors told people in the thirties and forties, that neutrality is no more for sale now than it was 40 or 50 years ago. I am confident, in proposing this timely motion, of full Government support.