Policy on Neutrality: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann urges the Government (i) to reject calls for Irish involvement in a so-called European defence commitment, and (ii) to reaffirm unequivocally the national policy of non-participation in military alliances.

—(Professor Murphy.)

Mr. Bromell

Tá an-áthas orm cuidiú leis an rún seo faoi neodracht na tíre agus faoi gan bheith páirteach i gcomhghuaillíocht armtha ar bith. Polasaí deimhneach an Rialtais atá sa rún seo agus is breá liom an deis a bheith agam cuidiú leis an rún agus cuidiú le polasaí neodrachta na hÉireann.

I see no difficulty in supporting the motion before us and to enunciate Government policy with regard to nonalignment in military alliances and with regard to our commitment to neutrality. Senator Manning asked in his contribution to the debate why this motion had been put down. I think it is timely that it was put down. We have come to accept neutrality as part of our tradition. We have come to accept that we are not aligned to any military alliance but, as against that, over the past number of years there have been calls by people in authority, by people who are perhaps genuinely motivated, that we should consider abandoning neutrality, that we should consider joining some alliances, particularly organisations such as NATO.

With 1992 approaching us and since the Single European Act has been passed, it was questioned whether we should give a further commitment to Europe by joining in a defence of what was called Europe — and I notice the words "so-called European commitment" in the motion. Many of the people who speak in this way have, I am sure, a certain amount of idealism, and perhaps there is a certain degree of morality involved. Some of them went so far as to say that there would be a financial benefit to us if we joined in some European alliance such as NATO. We should give them credit for putting their cards on the table. It gives us an opportunity to restate our commitment to neutrality and our commitment not to become involved in any military alliances, be they alliances of part of Europe, of the totality of Europe, or more international alliances.

The official policy is there. Ministers and the Government have enunciated that policy and the people have consistently supported it. It has never been questioned in Government. It is important to note that the Government have given no commitment to the abandonment of that policy, nor have they been asked, so far as we know, in any European conference or any European setting to abandon what has become our traditional policy of neutrality and of non-alignment.

There is general acceptance perhaps among the older generation that our policy of neutrality began with the Second World War. This is emphasised by the way we remained neutral during the Second World War but I think it goes back further than that. You could argue that our policy of neutrality goes back to the First World War, with the great anti-conscription campaign and the pro-neutrality campaign. It has been stated by some people that this was an anti-British campaign. I do not accept that at all. It was anti-British in so far as many of the people involved in the campaign were people of the 1916 Republican tradition but the anti-conscription campaign was as enthusiastically fought in Belfast and in what is now the six northern counties of Ireland as it was in the most southerly counties of Ireland. It embraced a united Ireland against conscription, a united Ireland in favour of neutrality.

Even during the Second World War conscription was not brought into the Six Counties by the British Government, which is very interesting and perhaps augurs well if we could develop an all-Ireland neutrality and an all-Ireland non-commitment to military alliances as such. We were in a different position during the Second World War in that we had our own Government and they took a conscious decision not to become involved. That decision was backed up by 99 per cent of the population of the country at that time and by a very large proportion of the population since then. There were some mavericks at that time, as there are some mavericks today. The most notable mavericks of that period would have been James Dillon, who was in favour of joining the Allies against Nazi Germany.

The policy of neutrality during that period was an excellent policy for the Government and an excellent policy for the people. It had some very beneficial results for the whole people of Ireland. It made us self-reliant, independent and self-sufficient. The factories and the industries had been created during the thirties. We had to rely on them to provide us with work and with food. We had to rely on our shipping to provide the raw materials for our industries. Organisations such as Bord na Móna were built up in order to provide fuel and energy and that made us more self-reliant, more respected and more self-respecting.

Some people during this debate have said that it made us more introverted but I take the opposite view. I think we became much more independent. We were able to stand up as equal partners in Europe afterwards because we had come through a holocaust that involved the whole of Europe. We had been saved from the massacres in Europe, but we had to give a great commitment to our country, to what we had in our country and we had to make ourselves self-sufficient and independent. But I think it put a bit of bone and marrow into us at the time. During that time, it should be remembered, our Army was built up to hundreds of thousands and there were such other organisations as the LDF, the ARP and various other auxiliary forces at that time. Thus there was a great commitment not only to our policy of neutrality but also to the State. It was a very young State, having come through the War of Independence and the Economic War of the thirties, to be landed into a world conflict in which we were able to stand independently.

The main logical reason put forward at that time for our stance was the question of Partition. The will of the people was to remain neutral and not to take sides. One of the logical reasons proposed at that time was the Partition of our country, imposed on us despite the will of the people in 1918 and still lingering to this day with all of its sad effects. It is important to emphasise that our neutrality and the question of Partition at the time was not a question of being anti-British. Indeed, I suppose our neutrality could be looked upon during the Second World War as a benevolent neutrality towards Britain and a benevolent neutrality towards the Allies fighting Nazi Germany at that time.

As well as that, it was a principled stand. When America became involved in the war and when it tried to involve us in that war — and America was always looked upon as our friend — the Government of the day took a very principled stand. They had taken their stand on neutrality, they were going to see that stand through and they kept their word, despite the machinations of such people as the then American Ambassador to Ireland, Mr. Gray, and despite the threats at times and the blandishments at other times of people such as Churchill. Just as the people had rallied together, just as they had built the backbone of the nation and just as they rallied to the armed forces at the time to protect our country so, too, the Government stood their ground. Despite threats and blandishments, such as Churchill's famous offer, if it could be so termed, that he would look again at the whole question of Partition provided Ireland joined the Allies against Germany, the success of de Valera in withstanding the threats and blandishments of that time was to be admired. It gave this country that backbone which enabled us to withstand the difficulties we encountered in the fifties and sixties and the difficulties we are now encountering.

Today since, thankfully, there is no war on in Europe and since nobody has asked us to give any commitment whatsoever to joining any military alliance and, as far as we know, we have not been asked to abandon our policy of neutrality, I think it is important that especially the younger generation would scrutinise and investigate our past neutrality and perhaps the reasons for our neutrality at present. Most people would take it that neutrality is now a traditional aspect of our foreign policy, a tradition most people would say goes back to the Second World War but I would argue that it goes much further back even to the First World War. Even in these circumstances that the tradition is there, a lot of people do not want to be involved. They are seeing the havoc war has wrought on Europe. We see the havoc that war has wrought on various countries throughout the world, because there is no period, no time, no day that a war is not going on somewhere. I think the consensus here, as would be the consensus, I would say, in many European countries today, is not to become involved in any other conflict, even what is termed "ordinary" conflict, not to talk about nuclear conflict.

There is also the financial side, that we could not afford the type of armaments that are common in many countries today, even though the other argument is put forward by those who would ask us to question our neutrality and question whether we should not be aligned, that there could be beneficial results in the siting of bases in Ireland, for example, for American or other forces. I do not think this would be profitable to the country even financially, not to talk of the total abandonment of a policy that has withstood the horrors of the Second World War and has stood us good over the past 20, 30 or 50 years.

The Border had a relevance in the Second World War. I think it still has a relevancy today because it could be argued, and argued fairly strongly and logically, that as part of a combination of states — I said it could be argued — there should be a commitment by us to defend the perimeter of that combination particularly the perimeter of that combination which would be our own territory — for example, the island of Ireland. But I think there could be no commitment from us, from the Government or from anybody in the country to defending a border which was imposed on us and which has been kept there for the past 70 years and which has caused so much trouble and so much suffering to all the people of Ireland.

Our stance on neutrality and non-alignment has been appreciated and has given us a standing far in excess of what we really deserve as a very small insignificant country in world terms. Our standing in former colonial areas, in areas such as the Arab world and so on has given us a position far beyond what we would have expected had we not been neutral or had we been aligned. In this way it is great to see our Army accepted in tough spots all over the world in their role as peacemakers with the United Nations. It is good to see them as observers in various areas and it is good to see our Garda Síochána now taking an active part in United Nations affairs such as in Namibia. It gives us a standing far beyond our size and beyond what would be considered our influence.

I note as well, as I said previously, that the words "so-called European commitment" are included in the motion. I presume that "so-called" refers to "European" rather than to "commitment". We should realise that there are changes taking place at present particularly in the eastern bloc countries and, hopefully, these will lead to greater democracy in these countries and, therefore, the threat that seemed to be posed to the western European states from the eastern European states and from Russia seems at least to be less now than it was ten, 20 or 30 years ago. This is to be welcomed, and the degree of democracy that will be allowed to the various republics within the Soviet Union, such as Estonia, Latvia and the Ukraine, should also be welcomed. The developments there are most interesting. To a person with an Irish background, particularly with regard to language, the developments there are very interesting.

I notice that Senator Murphy used an amended phrase from Parnell when he said that no politician should set bounds to the march of Europe. If we looked at the Parnell Monument we would get the correct quotation. Amazingly enough, in nearly the next sentence Senator Murphy started lecturing the West Germans not to be thinking of a united Germany. That is rather strange, in the same way as it is rather strange that we at times are being lectured not to be thinking of a united Ireland. However, I think it is very important that in the context of what we have as the present European Community that that is not sacrosanct, that there are new people looking for accession; and I think it would be very helpful to us if the accession of such states as Austria, and perhaps even Sweden, became a reality. We would have then a good nucleus of neutral powers within the Community. This should be looked upon in a positive way, not just a negative way, a positive way of building up a strengthened Europe, but a Europe that is committed to neutrality, that is committed not to military alignments but committed to peace. If that were to take place with an expanded Europe, all the better. Initially perhaps we could think of it in terms of having a neutral all-Ireland which I think would be acceptable to people of all persuasions North and South. It would be a great beginning perhaps to peace within the country.

Mr. Ross

First all I would like to thank Senator Murphy for putting down this motion. Although neutrality and our non-involvement in a military alliance appear to be accepted by all parties in this House almost without question it is important that it is reasserted from time to time, especially in the light of some of the statements which have been made by Members of the Opposition recently. It is important that we debate it and that we re-examine what we mean by it.

Secondly, I would like to say how much I enjoyed Senator Bromell's speech, except I think it is regrettable that he had to bring in the idea of an all-Ireland neutrality in this. I find it a pity that Senator Bromell would refer under this motion to what he calls our own territory up there which he refers to as the island of Ireland. If members of the Government or the Opposition are going to talk in those terms about Ireland they should also have the perspicacity to mention not just the territory of Ireland but the people who live on it. It is very easy and glib to say "Well, that is our territory and our territory should be included in neutrality", but what ought to be recognised is that there are a million people up there who perhaps do not wish to take part or participate in that neutrality and who perhaps want to be part of a military pact.

It is appropriate that we should be debating this motion at this time. What is happening in the world was highlighted by the Taoiseach's meeting with Mr. Gorbachev recently. If our non-involvement in a military alliance is to be highlighted in any concrete way, the Taoiseach did us a great service by pointing it out with the symbolism of that meeting. If that proved anything it proved that our involvement in a military alliance is now not only not expedient but that it is simply no longer necessary.

When we talk about involvement in military alliances we do not mean joining the Warsaw Pact, we mean becoming members of NATO or we mean becoming members of some European defence unit. The significance of what happened in the meeting between Mr. Gorbachev and Deputy Haughey is simply that Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet Union are no longer our traditional enemies but they are now our friends, that Mr. Gorbachev threatens us in no visible obvious way militarily. Therefore, it would be absurd for us to become part of a military pact which points in an aggressive way towards the Soviet Union. Those days, I think, are over.

I do not believe that the Russians or the Warsaw Pact or any military alliance throughout the world is a threat to Ireland. Whereas we may in the past have felt a strong ideological commitment to the United States and its way of life, I do not think that recent events would push us in the direction of joining them in a military pact. What we have seen I suspect is not the solidifying of old alliances, it is not that NATO or European defence will get stronger, but we are seeing the breaking up of alliances throughout the world, the breaking up of defence commitments. What I suspect we will see from the new era in Russia, who is after all the old enemy, the enemy against whom the military alliances were formed, will be new alliances in Europe and a less threatening neighbour on the eastern flank of Europe. It is not inconceivable that so-called eastern and western Communist and non-Communist states will form alliances in the future and that the Berlin Wall itself may be dismantled.

This, I think, is the sort of far-reaching consequence of what is happening in the world today, and we have played our part in bringing this about by that meeting. I do not believe it is in any way relevant any longer for Members either of this House, of the other House, or indeed where I think it happens a lot, of the European Community, to start talking in terms of us becoming part of a military alliance. The tide of ideology and the boundary movements in the world are certainly against this and if ever it was the right time to debate this and reassert this I think it is now.

It would be inconceivable now that some sort of a pan-European war could break out. Whereas the Cold War existed after the Second World War when the Iron Curtain was raised — that Cold War has been thawing so fast that the threat of any sort of a European war is no longer there and for Ireland to start thinking in terms of sacrificing its neutrality now would be utterly wrong, utterly impracticable and would be moving completely against the trend in the world.

We should be looking towards new ideological trade and political alliances, not military alliances. I hope the European Community as such, which was set up principally as a defence mechanism after the Second World War, should now be regarding this no longer as a priority. The European Community has perhaps a great role to play in terms of trade, but in terms of a political and a defence union it is probably no longer significant or relevant because the threat which the European Community was set up to defend itself against no longer appears to exist.

Having said that, I think we should look at where our foreign policy is leading us and whether it is leading us dangerously close to a lack of independence and a loss of neutrality in foreign policy. The Minister has heard me say this before in this House on other issues and maybe this will be the first time I can say it without interruption or without several interruptions. However, I think I should say this: I think we are dangerously close, because of our common foreign policy with the European Community, to being considered almost de facto in a military alliance. I say this because on issues which we have discussed in this House on foreign policy — Iran and Nicaragua I can think of immediately — possibly it would have been more convincing to those of us who trumpet our neutrality had we not taken a common line with the European Community on all these particular issues. It is often a diluted line and it seems to indicate that Ireland is not a completely independent state in terms of foreign policy. There are, obviously, good practical reasons — indeed, I think in the case of Iran the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister made it known quietly that this country was not fully behind what was stated by the European Community. It might be beneficial to ourselves and it might give our voice more strength if we were from time to time — I think it has happened only once — to break from the European Community on foreign policy and on issues like that.

Senator Bromell touched on the history of our neutrality. I think I shall be the first speaker here not to give the House the professional version of the history of neutrality. There are very good reasons for that because I do not rate so highly as my predecessors in this debate on that particular issue. However, I do feel that those who say that neutrality is not a sacred cow are wrong. I think it is deeply embedded in many Irish people that if they do not support neutrality they are not somehow fully nationalist.

There is a confusion between neutrality and not joining military pacts on the one hand and nationalism on the other. It has been very much the case in the Fianna Fáil Party. I remember going on television with a member of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party who waxed absolutely lyrical about neutrality and how it must not be touched. When asked why not, he said it was part of our tradition since the Second World War and beforehand but he gave no good, concrete reasons why it is there. It is folklore and, therefore, it ought to be thought through.

We ought to produce the good reasons — and there are good reasons — why we should be neutral rather than the traditional belief which is confused with the neutrality of the Second World War which was to some extent and in some people's minds based on the anti-Britishness. There was undoubtedly a feeling abroad that we would not fight Britain's wars for her, a feeling which was based on 800 years of history. It was an understandable feeling. That feeling was there and it is still confused in the public mind with being a patriotic Irishman. That, I hope, is going. Indeed, it is healthy that members of the Fine Gael Party have attacked neutrality. I happen not to agree with them, but it is healthy that they have done that. It is healthy that many of them believe we should become members of a military alliance because it is challenging the preconceptions upon which we have been brought up.

I will sum up by saying that if we were to join a military alliance, which God forbid, we should be able to point out what the possible concrete advantages to Ireland would be and the only possible concrete advantages which have been suggested which are credible to me are that it would provide jobs in military bases. This is not a good enough reason. Others say it would be a realistic reflection of what we believe in because we have a capitalist way of life and because we have an American versus a Communist way of life. That would not justify us in moving into a military alliance. I think what would happen would be that we would have no voice within that military defence pact, we would be protected without being able to offer a voice, whereas outside it we have a small but influential voice which we can maximise by maintaining our neutrality and our independent foreign policy.

Finally, I should just like to say that it is important that we debate this and it is important that Fine Gael debate this because as Senator Murphy so rightly said at the beginning of his speech, Fine Gael, the Opposition party here, has spoken with many voices on this particular issue and it is an open secret that there is confusion in the Opposition on this particular issue. What should be seen at the end of this debate is an unambiguous commitment from the Opposition party to non-involvement in military alliances. What should be seen and should be exposed is whether that party speaks with one voice on this or with several.

Mr. S. Haughey

I welcome this debate. I think the recent visit of President Gorbachev to Shannon has highlighted for the Irish people developments which are taking place in the international sphere and it is important having just experienced that visit and all that it involves that we would discuss our neutrality in the light of these international events.

I listened very carefully to Senator Murphy's contribution and to that of Senator Ross. It does not sound right when I say this, but I would have to say that I fully agree with what they have said.

Mr. Ross

Shame.

Mr. S. Haughey

I always knew the Independent Senators were independent but I had a kind of sneaky suspicion that they were independent against Fianna Fáil and its policies and traditions. However, I am glad to say that on this issue I was wrong in that view and I agree with their sentiments.

Senator Murphy in particular outlined how the concept of neutrality has changed. This is of crucial importance. An understanding of the changing definition of neutrality, particularly with regard to the Irish situation, is extremely important. Many Senators have expressed the view that there is confusion with regard to Irish neutrality and I would agree with that view. It is of vital importance that we agree on a definition of Irish neutrality. It would be fair to say that the concept of Irish neutrality has changed and evolved so that in 1989 it means something much different from what it meant earlier this century for many people.

As I said already, there is some confusion with regard to what Irish neutrality means so an understanding of the definition is essential. Senators have given their version of the historical evolution of the concept of Irish neutrality and at the risk of boring the Seanad, I too, propose to give an historical narrative in this regard.

The new Irish State which came into existence in the 1920s was highly dependent on Britain and during our struggle for independence neutrality became part and parcel of the separatist movement. Neutrality at that stage, I would suggest, was anti-British in nature and the fact that we proclaimed a policy of neutrality meant for many people that we were demonstrating our independence of Britain.

By 1935 the concept was evolving further. In 1935 Italy invaded Ethiopia and the whole concept of collective security had failed. Mr. de Valera at that time declared Ireland to be neutral with regard to the oncoming war. Churchill bitterly condemned Ireland and our neutral stance at that time and from then on neutrality for the Irish people became a moral virtue. It represented much more than the avoidance of military alliances; it represented the rights of small nations and it represented the wish of most people to work for international peace. By this stage neutrality had become a moral virtue and had evolved from the mere avoidance of military alliances.

In the 1980s a more fundamental neutrality emerged again. The whole idea of working for peace and justice and human rights in the world became even more prevalent. The rise of the CND movement also contributed to this new idea. The whole movement for nuclear disarmament and so forth became more prominent and this, again, had its influence on the evolving definition of Irish neutrality. Senator Murphy in his contribution refers to this neutrality as the new neutrality which was positive and fundamental and pacifist. I would certainly agree with him on that, that the neutrality which we have today means much more. It is positive, it is fundamental, it represents a desire to see peace and justice throughout the world and it represents a desire to work for human rights and so forth.

Neutrality today is not just the avoidance of military alliances but a moral policy involving the promotion of peace, justice and human rights. In effect, those who propose the abandonment of our policy of neutrality may not know what they are proposing given the new fundamental neutrality which has emerged in the 1980s. Are they, in fact, proposing that we do not work for peace, justice and human rights and so forth in the world? I suspect that if they thought they meant that, they would not be advocating the abandonment of our neutrality.

We now live in an inter-dependent world and recent developments in the Soviet Union clearly demonstrate this fact. The question now needs to be asked: what role has force to play in this new inter-dependent world? It would be fair to say that force will probably always have a role to play in international politics and international affairs but I would like to believe that the role of force is decreasing, that changes in the world economy and so forth have meant that we now live in an increasingly inter-dependent world. This is important when discussing this issue.

As I have said already, the Gorbachev visit to Shannon demonstrated clearly to the Irish people what exactly is happening in world affairs. Our policies with regard to nuclear disarmament, for example, seem to be very much in line with what President Gorbachev said at the United Nations recently. It would be fair to say that everything has changed with regard to world politics and changed for the better.

Some Senators have already asked the question, and I think it needs to be asked: just how important are military alliances in the 1980s. Who is going to attack Europe or who is going to attack Ireland? These questions are now becoming much more relevant and would certainly seem to suggest that the more fundamental neutrality is much more important today. The moral aspect of neutrality will have to be stressed from now on.

We are, in fact, playing our full role in a world characterised by multilateral conference diplomacy and inter-governmental organisations. Ireland is playing a full role both in the United Nations and the EC and, again, our history has meant that we promote peace and mediatory tasks throughout the world. We are to the forefront in calling for arms reduction and universal nuclear disarmament. Ireland does have a mission and we are determined to pursue that in every possible multilateral and inter-governmental organisation.

Ireland is still criticised both by politicians in our own country and abroad for sitting on the sidelines. It is said we are not playing a role in defence, that we are opting out of world affairs and that we are isolationist. This is not so. As I said, we have a mission. We have a mission in world affairs to promote peace, justice and human rights. In particular the sending of our peacekeeping forces, through the vehicle of the United Nations, clearly demonstrates that we are not isolationist, that we are determined to play a role in world affairs. Therefore, the argument that we are isolationist certainly does not hold when seen against that background.

I would now like to deal specifically with the question of the European Economic Community. Contrary to what some people suggest, the new Irish fundamental neutrality had a role to play both in the EC and EPC. Neutrality, as I said, is evolving. It is fair to say that, from the Irish point of view, the fact that the EC does not deal with the military aspects of security is of fundamental importance to us. Whereas before we were a small country which was rarely listened to in world affairs, now we can have our voice listened to through the vehicle of the European Economic Community and the whole process of EPC. We have brought out unique tradition to that process and we are now able to influence world affairs and to promote peace, justice and so forth.

The Single European Act was passed by the Irish people on 1 July 1987. The Tánaiste when speaking in the Seanad late last year said that the European Community is a means to bring about a radical understanding among nations who have for so many centuries been ravaged by division and conflict. That is a very important statement. It shows that the whole process of EPC and the EC leads to a reduction in tension, to more understanding and to more consensus which must be a good thing in today's world. We participate in the EC's development assistance activities and this accounts for a significant proportion of Ireland's total aid effort. Ireland plays a role in the formulation of Community development policy. The signing of the Lomé Convention and so forth clearly demonstrates that Ireland can now play a role with regard to world affairs whereas we could not do so before.

The Single European Act deals with the whole process of European Political Co-operation. Title III in particular deals with co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy. That whole process, however, works on the basis on the consensus so, again, we can bring our unique tradition to that process and work on the basis of consensus, which is of fundamental importance to us. It must be clearly stated that the scope of Title III is confined to the political and economic aspects of security. It does not affect our long-established policy of military neutrality. That is of vital importance to us. This whole question of the EC and our neutrality needs to be looked at further. Our neutrality is evolving and given that we can now play a role we can promote our mission and our unique tradition with regard to world affairs through the vehicle of the EC. That is important.

Ireland has been to the forefront in promoting nuclear disarmament, in promoting human rights and in trying, for example, to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict but where I see neutrality playing a particular role through the EPC process is with regard to South Africa. The 12 member states have agreed to the total dismantlement of apartheid and to its replacement by a genuinely democratic non-racial system of government. In 1986 the 12 decided to ban imports of South African iron, steel and gold coins as well as new investment in South Africa. Again, we can see that that policy with regard to apartheid would have been our policy in any event were we not a member of the European Economic Community.

There is one last aspect which I would like to deal with and I think other Senators have touched on it briefly also, namely, the whole question of Irish neutrality and how it relates to the question of Partition. At this stage when dealing with this subject we are going back to the military alliance aspect of neutrality and not the new, more fundamental neutrality which has emerged. In 1949 the then Coalition Government were approached about joining NATO and Seán MacBride, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, categorically stated no, that as our country was divided we could not have a military alliance with a State responsible for that Partition. Every so often the question of neutrality with regard to the northern question is discussed and in the context of a British withdrawal. It was mooted again in 1980.

I conclude by saying it is important that we would look at the military aspects of our neutrality in the context of a united Ireland and a further constitutional conference. Given that we rejected NATO in 1949 because of the Northern situation, were there a possibility of a constitutional conference and a British withdrawal, we would have to look at neutrality and military alliances again but that is another scenario. It is down the road and we certainly do not have time to discuss it here tonight.

Mr. Connor

Our party welcome this debate at this timely juncture given our acceptance of greater integration in the development of a new Europe and an awareness among European leaders of the need to develop a non-belligerent European Community common defence-security policy outside of NATO. I suppose in many people's minds NATO is perceived as a confrontational and belligerent organisation. The kind of western European defence union that certain people in what is called the Western European Union nowadays envisage would be a defence-security arrangement to defend the Community against internal disorder and aggression possibly from some outside power.

I happen to believe that for this country, if we are honest about our participation in the greater economic and political cohesion of the European Community from now until 1992 and beyond, we must consider some form of participation in internal security and external defence, always remembering that defence in the context in which I am talking has no expansionist intent, has no aggressive intent or has no belligerent intent.

The debate on neutrality in Ireland has been characterised by what I would call tactical pragmatism quite often but most of the time it has been characterised by pure hypocrisy. I am something of a student of politics of the world after World War II. There arose in the world a new political concept of neutralism. Newly emergent or independent states came together and called themselves non-aligned or neutral. Chief among those were India, Indonesia, Yugoslavia. They held some famous conferences; one in Bandung in 1955 set down the principles of neutrality. They held another famous conference in Belgrade, I think in 1961, but was Ireland, so-called neutral Ireland or non-aligned Ireland, at any of these conferences? Not a bit of it. It would have been unthinkable that we would even send an observer to a non-aligned conference or to a neutral nations' conference during the great era of the non-aligned nations in the 1950s and 1960s. Quite unthinkable.

I submit to the House that our neutrality has its origins in anti-British sentiment. Michael Collins said, and I am thankful to Professor Edward Walsh for reminding us of this in his recent lecture:

The Irish struggle has always been for freedom — freedom from English occupation, freedom from English domination, not for freedom with any particular label attached.

Mr. de Valera said in 1920:

An independent Ireland would see its own independence in jeopardy the moment it saw the independence of Britain seriously threatened.

In effect, Mr. de Valera was saying that at any time the security of the United Kingdom was threatened from outside, it would embroil Ireland in its effort to defend itself and to defeat any attack from enemies.

Neutrality was not an issue in the newly independent State for the first 20 years, as far as one can see. The 1937 Constitution was an excellent opportunity for Mr. de Valera to enshrine neutrality as a principle of Irish foreign policy but he did not. Thus, there is no constitutional basis for our neutrality, although let it be said in tribute to the founders of the State that their vision of independence led them to formulate an independent foreign policy to demonstrate to the world that this was an independent state, not necessarily influenced by the quite overwhelming influence of our next-door neighbour in the affairs of the then post-World War I world.

It has been said, and I think it was Professor Walsh who said it recently, that our neutrality in World War II was Mr. de Valera's great political stroke. It was a stroke of luck, I submit, and no more. Of course, it was a pragmatic policy, if it was not a very moral one. We must remember that Belgium and Holland proclaimed their neutrality at the beginning of World War II. So did Greece but that was a fat lot of good to Belgium or to Holland or to Greece when it suited the war purposes of Hitler or Mussolini to occupy them in turn.

The same would hold true for us. If the demands of war were such by either power, a fat lot of good our neutrality would have done to defend us from the ravages of war between 1939 and 1945. We can speculate again on our neutrality. If, for instance, this island of ours was located in the middle of the North Sea during the war years, with Britain on our western flank and Hitler's Reich on our eastern flank, we can just imagine what good our neutrality might be. We would be like Belgium and like Holland. We would be in the cockpit, we would be occupied and our neutrality would be worthless.

So I say in all seriousness that maybe we should in many ways view our neutrality during World War II more with shame than with pride given that it was a neutrality towards Hitler's Third Reich, which was possibly the most evil regime this world has ever known. I, for one, cannot see the morality of that kind of neutrality explained away by what is called the pragmatic needs of keeping clear of the quarrels of the big powers.

After the War, strangely, our neutrality and the reasons for our neutrality shifted and it became closely linked to Partition. Seán MacBride, the first Coalition Minister for Foreign Affairs — he has been mentioned on a number of occasions — held out the possibility of our joining NATO except, he said, that the then Government could not involve themselves "with a military power responsible for the Partition of this country". In 1951 Mr. de Valera, when asked about joining NATO said, like Mr. MacBride had said before him, that Partition was the obstacle to joining, not any particular principle of neutrality". However, events and attitudes moved on to the extent that in 1962 Mr. Lemass, the then Taoiseach, after we had first applied to become a member of the then Common Market, said:

We recognise that a military commitment will be an inevitable consequence of our joining the Common Market, and ultimately we would be prepared to yield even the technical label of neutrality — we are prepared to go into this integrated Europe without any reservation as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy and defence.

I am quoting Seán Lemass in an interview with the New York Times on 18 July 1962. Eight years later on our accession to the EC, Mr. Lemass's successor, the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, had this to say:

Being a member of that Community, we would naturally be interested in the defence of the territories embraced by the Community. There is no question of neutrality there.

That was stated by Mr. Lynch, as Taoiseach, on 23 July 1969.

The debate on neutrality faded almost out of existance with our gradual accession to full membership of the Community in the 1970s. Although the Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1978, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy, told the Dáil in November of that year that:

In the event of a situation arising which one would hope would never arise, the Community of which we were a member were under attack, then obviously we would have to face our obligations.

The debate came back again in the early 1980s at the time of the Falklands War. It was referred to briefly by Senator Haughey. Deputy Haughey's Government in 1982 depended for survival on the vote of Deputy Blaney and others who could probably be described as republican Members of the Dáil. The Government, with their dependence on these votes for survival in those summer days of 1982, decided to invoke neutrality again when Britain demanded a common European stance for her dispute with Argentina.

Our declaration of neutrality then, I submit, had nothing to do with the principles of neutralism or with the principles of neutrality but it had all to do with the then Government's instability and their need to keep the vote of Deputy Blaney and a few others. Also at that time — strange times in Ireland — the Minister for Justice was advising that M15 and M16 were abroad with agents of this country and so, it became necessary to take extraordinary measures to keep an eye and indeed an ear on certain "collaborations" as they would be termed — some of them in the Press and some of them in the Cabinet itself. Because of all of these strange happenings it became necessary to assert our sovereignty by asserting our neutrality. I am no admirer of Margaret Thatcher but I certainly find her more acceptable than General Galtieri, who is now in jail.

We might remind Deputy Haughey that a Senior Minister, the Minister for Finance in a Fianna Fáil Government in the late' sixties, said that a political union in Europe without a defence commitment would be meaningless. Now the debate is coming back again in the event of the Single European Act and the new era of détente in Europe is the beginning of what some of us hope may be a new age of reason in the world. Who would have thought even five years ago that the most popular political leader in the world in the mind of the people in the west would be the President of the Soviet Union and that his popularity would be earned by his extraordinary attempts to make the Soviet system an open society and his attempts to start a dialogue in the world to rid this planet of weapons of mass destruction and of belligerent military alliances.

A dozen years ago Austria announced its intention of joining the EC. What would the Soviet response be? Possibly, the sending of tanks to Vienna to guarantee for them, the Soviets, the terms of neutrality they had laid down for that country on the withdrawal of their troops in the early 1950s after World War II which set up an independent state — many would say the quasi-independent state of-Austria.

Mr. Robb

It gives me great pleasure to support this motion, particularly as I have had very strong feelings about the whole issue of neutrality for a very long time. It was difficult for me because I was brought up in a tradition which very much associated itself with the British Imperial Empire — building tradition and participated in the wars of England with a considerable degree of enthusiasm. It was only when I began to understand the problems of Ireland and the history of Ireland that I began to see the wonderful opportunity there is for Ireland to promote for itself a role in the world as a neutral peace-making state.

We can start — I am sure this has already been stated by some Senators — by saying that Ireland seeks first to establish its independence. This was achieved through its role in the League of Nations, through distancing itself from the various provisions of the original Treaty between the Provisional Government of Ireland and Lloyd George's cabinet, through a self-conscious ware-time neutrality and subsequently by breaking with the then British Commonwealth. The Twenth-six Counties in this part of Ireland had managed to establish unequivocally, against an enormous amount of opposition, an international recognition as a sovereign independent nation. The reputation of the Irish Republic in this respect was confirmed by the world community when it was admitted as an independent nation into the body of the United Nations and subsequently by entry in advance of Britain into the European Community.

In spite of the fact that 60,000 Southern Irish volunteers went along with 40,000 Northern Irish volunteers to fight against the forces of fascism during the 1939-45 holocaust, this part of Ireland retained a neutral position in that conflict. While many disliked it, others poured ridicule on it and some even sought to despise Ireland because of its neutrality at that time, any student of history, in particular of the history of the Anglo-Irish relationship, would concede that this self-conscious assertion of independence of Britain tied up very much with now dated concepts of sovereignty in order to establish a position for people who had been so dependent for so long on the management, control and in other ways of a very powerful neighbour.

However, I would add that it is possible to argue that the obsession with the need to act absolutely and totally independently of Britain apart from being as unrealistic as it is unattainable did little to promote constructive thinking on the Partition issue. The more stridently this independence was proclaimed by a State for whose ethos they had so little empathy and about whose intentions they held so much suspicion, the more prone were the Irish minority — the Northern loyalist community with which I am associated or from whom I have come — to back away from unity with the State. Therefore, there is today little, if any, justification for neutrality on the grounds that it was being pursued 40 years ago and this point has been eloquently made by a number of Senators. In any case, in today's world the concept of absolute sovereignty is absolute nonsense and anyone who proclaims it could hardly claim to be living in the real world.

Nuclearism, the new mobility of peoples, the new communications technology, common global consequences of destructive ecology, ensure that we are aware today of living in an inter-dependent world. The concept of NATO has now become dated so that the references which have been made to statements such as that of Seán Lemass in 1962 that Ireland was not neutral in its ideological commitment but simply did not belong to NATO because of a complex quarrel with one of its neighbours is of times past. Seán MacBride had even earlier indicated that although Ireland had not joined NATO in 1949 when invited, she might be willing to do so if Partition were ended.

The world has changed in the past 40 years and the way in which one looks at Partition has changed. The relationship with Britain has changed and a new era is beckoning. The relationship with Britain is more and more a relationship between equals. The concept of NATO, as Fintan O'Toole pointed out in The Irish Times of 6 April, is about the situation in the world of 40 years ago. In those 40 years Irish neutrality has often been proclaimed in a voice of sanctimonious piety and, as Senator Connor said and I would add, like most assertions of that nature not without a little ring of hypocrisy. We have been neutral in favour of some and against others, with a wink and a nod here and there, whether it be in favour of the USA for fear of losing its favour, against the Communists for fear of losing votes at home, or neutral towards the atrocities of Iran for fear of losing the beef trade. We should not be in the business of competing in the virtue stakes for neutral purity. Rather, we should be defining an international role for Ireland as attractive to the young people of the North, as it would be to those living here. This role should be based on a clearly defined policy of uncompromising positive neutrality with a clear idea of what we mean by that. It should be the central pillar to a peace-making pro-life philosophy which the planet so urgently needs. The controlling influence of the USA in world affairs starts to recede as perestroika and glasnost open up the vastness — and I emphasise the vastness — of the USSR.

Whether we like it or not, western Europe is changing fundamentally also. Nation state-ism is dated and indeed Ireland will have to confront the problem soon of whether we are going to leapfrog over it or whether we are going to try to have it as a short term option until we move on to what the rest of the world is looking for. This has an important significance in relation to how we look at the problem of the North at the moment. Autonomy, Fourth World consciousness, ethnic awareness, the right to be different, these replace in the minds of people the idea of belonging to a uniform nation. Yet those who hold power cling to the concept of aggrandisement at the centre, whether it is the centre of the old idea of a nation state or the centre of a conglomoration of nations.

There has been much talk about positive neutrality. Now is the time, I submit, to define it. Neutrality should be central to our peace-making mission in this world, a role for which Ireland is uniquely fitted because of its relationship with the Third World, because of its understanding of post-colonial problems, because of its relationship with the USA and more recently the developing relationship with Canada, the relationship with members of the Commonwealth of nations and now, by a freak of good fortune we find ourselves with a seat as a neutral at the table of the European Community.

One Irishman, Raymond Crotty, almost prevented the European Community from taking shape and we should applaud him for he demonstrated the power of the individual against the mighty political machine. Now that we are there, however, we must never, ever allow the Community to disrespect Ireland's commitment to the neutrality which we seek to establish for ourselves and our children. There is a role for everyone in positive neutrality. This is something that gives us the right to feel we have a distinctive part to play as a small nation in the affairs of the world. This peace which we earnestly seek must start with ourselves, healing the split that Senator Ross talks about, the split inside ourselves, before we heal our division from others.

Our holy men must, therefore, be helped to encourage us to find in the spiritual dimension of living the real peace which mankind so urgently needs. Our young people must be prepared to fulfil peace-making obligations in exchanges, through the learning of the languages of other people and not least through the learning of our own ancient language as well. If every Irish school were to teach a different world language we would have a cadre of youth able to go out to the four corners of the globe and communicate. We must have respect for the environment, distaste for excessive consumption, awareness of the sources of our energy and our material goods, a clear understanding of human rights and their development, awareness of the deployment in number and power of world weaponry and we must stand on principle. This is where I would disagree profoundly with Senator Connor as a person who believes and who would uphold our right to be a pro-life, peace-making nation in the world.

I supported Deputy Haughey, then Taoiseach, over his stand on the Falkland Islands. Unfortunately, I cannot develop the reasons here and now but I would still support him were the circumstances the same. We must try to develop our understanding of the reasons for the fundamental splits in consciousness which have led to so much bad blood and unhealed wounds between the different sections of mankind as world history has evolved. There is a need for the politics of repentance, a whole new way indeed, of looking at the world. This is what we should be trying to grapple with when we talk blithely about positive neutrality and peace-making.

We should, therefore, be inculcating in our schools the need for transformation and how we look at life on our planet. Without this transformation, nuclear holocausts or ecological disaster will render extinct all life on earth. We must ask ourselves, need it come to that? The role played by centralism and "gigantism" in our present discomfort must be faced head-on. Universities and colleges have a fundamental obligation to look at the reasons for the individual and collective community lack of self-confidence that makes us feel insecure and threatened, that makes us politically violent. The territorial imperative, in other words, needs redefinition.

I will conclude by saying that constructive Irish neutrality is very much linked up with the need for the resolution of our own conflict, the establishment of consensus democracy throughout the island as a whole. It is the best guarantee we can give in relation to the security of our immediate neighbour, a peaceful Ireland which is also neutral. Also, in contrast to alignment, it provides the least pretext for further destabilisation within Ireland. More important, however, is how we decide to use it, whether it should be an active or passive form of neutrality. Until this accommodation is achieved between the Irish majority and the Irish minority — that is, the Northern loyalist community — the island will remain unstable and such instability will remain a source of anxiety with regard to Ireland's neutral status. By the same token, if Ireland were to become a pawn in the power bloc game, it would take on board a further dest-abilising factor prior to a settlement and a serious cause for potential destabilisation.

Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting this motion and I hope all other Senators will do likewise.

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

First, may I join those Senators who felt that this motion was timely. I feel the motion was also very timely and I would like to thank all of the Senators for what were in the main very positive contributions.

I am glad that Senator Robb has taken Senator Connor to task — although that might be too strong — because I was going to do so. Senator Connor referred to a new age of reason. I feel he should also move into that age and forget what may have happened in the early eighties and certainly not refer as he did to a Government who, for very sound reasons, took a stance in the early eighties that was completely against that of the Community. That Government were proved right after a number of months. The decision the Irish Government took at that time was taken not for the devious reasons that Senator Connor ascribed to them and I am surprised at him.

Essentially, this motion is a call for a reiteration of the policy of successive Governments, a policy which all the political parties still say they support. I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to restate the Government's well-established, long-standing position.

The first part of the motion urges the rejection of "calls for Irish involvement in a so-called European defence commitment". Senator Murphy mentioned some Irish politicians and others who, he says, are advocating such a course. However, I feel this is not a new development. There have always been people who questioned our neutrality policy. That, I suppose, is to be expected. What matters is that the policy of military neutrality is firmly maintained by this Government. It is important also to note that there is no external pressure on us to make a defence commitment or to force us into a defence alliance. Senator Manning and Senator Bromell, and indeed Senator Robb also referred to this matter. I am glad that they did so.

The values for which Ireland stands and which are enshrined in our Constitution, that is, respect for human rights and liberties under democratically enacted laws, peace and friendly co-operation among nations based on justice, morality and the rule of law, correspond with those of the other liberal democracies of Europe and the west. Our economic interests are linked to those of the western industrialised world so, we are clearly part of that world, ideologically, politically and economically.

We also pursue a policy of military neutrality. That policy and the distinctive role we have been able to play in international affairs have earned Ireland respect and a standing in the world of which we can all rightly be proud. We are committed to the promotion of disarmament and arms control. We emphasise the importance of the United Nations for maintaining international peace — in particular through our participation in UN peace-keeping operations. We are contributing to the greatly improved climate of east-west relations through the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. We promote respect for human rights world wide. We advocate respect for the rights of newly independent and developing countries. That the role we play is welcomed by other nations was recently confirmed to both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste during their visits to Washington and Ottawa and by President Gorbachev in Shannon. Our European partners, too, are happy to have this Irish dimension as part of the evolving joint foreign policy of the Twelve.

Our policy of military neutrality continues to be a positive element in Ireland's international standing. Like our predecessors, this Government, therefore, are fully committed to that policy and we will maintain that commitment. It is clearly in the national interest that we do so. Neither our membership of the European Community nor our involvement, together with the EC member states in European Political Co-operation obliges Ireland to act in a way incompatible with our policy of military neutrality. The Community has no competence in defence or military matters.

European Political Co-operation is the process which has been evolving since 1970 by which member states of the Community, operating on the basis of concensus, exchange information, consult together and where possible seek to adopt common positions and to take joint actions on the main foreign policy issues of concern to them. On this I can assure Senator Ross — and in his absence I am glad to acknowledge the fact that in this particular motion we seem to be at idem — that we can, as stated by Senator Haughey, put forward our own view and do put forward our own view on particular issues that arise in European Poltical Co-operation and the position the Twelve adopt takes account of Ireland's views.

As far as the remaining matters are concerned, the scope of European Political Co-operation is limited to political and economic aspects. Military aspects are excluded. This provisions has been made explicitly to take account of Ireland's position. To the extent that some of our partners wish to co-operate more closely on security matters beyond the scope of what is appropriate to European Political Co-operation, they do so in the fora appropriate for such co-operation, that is, the Western European Union or NATO, of which Ireland is, of course, not a member. All of this is set out in Title III of the Single European Act.

When depositing the instrument of ratification of the Act in 1987 the Government at the same time lodged a declaration that put our position beyond all doubt. It noted that the provisions of Title III did not affect Ireland's long-established policy of military neutrality and that co-ordination of positions on the political and economic aspects of security did not include the military aspects of security or procurement for military purposes.

There has been, of course, much debate among NATO and Western European Union member states and much speculation by commentatory in recent years about improving the organisational arrangements for their defence, strengthening NATO's European pillar, as it is often described. No doubt at some level some of our partners would like to see the Twelve have a role in defence and military matters. Many Members of the European Parliament are also of that view. Some of the calls for an Irish commitment to some form of collective defence to which Senator Murphy referred reflect that thinking. This debate does not involve Ireland or any other neutral state in Europe although we naturally give it close attention. There is no question of our being involved in a European defence commitment or a military alliance of any kind.

Many of those on the right who call for a reconstruction of our neutrality do not pay sufficient attention to the dramatic changes taking place in the world today between east and west. They are still trapped in Cold War concepts. As Senator Robb has stated, we are far removed from the tense situation that obtained not just in the forties but even at the beginning of the 1980s. The militarisation of the European Community and the shift of a neutral country like Ireland into a military alliance, which no one from outside is asking us to do at present, would send all the wrong signals, particularly with regard to the process of greater openness and democracy in eastern Europe. De Gaulle had a vision of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals and, while that remains a long way off, now it is not the time to be talking about creating or reinforcing a new military bloc which could make political and economic co-operation between the European Community and eastern Europe far more difficult, a point which was touched on by very many Senators.

In conclusion, the Government have no difficulty in calling for rejection of calls for Irish involvement in a so-called European defence commitment or in reaffirming unequivocally the national policy of non-participation in military alliances. I fully support this motion.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Harte and Senator Norris are offering. I will be calling on Senator Murphy at 7.50 p.m. Perhaps Senator Harte might divide his time with Senator Norris?

Mr. Harte

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has a quarter of an hour. If he could save time, that would include everybody.

Mr. Harte

Certainly. Naturally, the Labour Party are in support of the motion. We are at one with regard to the whole question of our modern-day attitude. It is just as well as that we put it on the record that not only has Ireland a long-standing position on neutrality but the question of political debate and controversy arises again. It is necessary in that sense for me to put a few matters on record with regard to the Labour Party's attitude.

The Labour Party unequivocally reiterate commitment to a neutral role for Ireland, not alone in the sense of abstention from any form of military alliance but in terms of active political philosophy. As early as 1918 the Labour Party adopted a wide-ranging statement on foreign policy in terms relevant to the world and national issues in that troubled time. That statement proclaimed the adherence of Irish labour to the concept of peace, on the basis of genuine democracy, the real self-determination of all subject peoples, no annexations, no indemnities and no undemocratic or secret treaties. The party committed themselves to the work and ideals of the International. That is going back to 1918.

In their policy documents in 1969 the Labour Party set out some brief outline statements and had a fundamental stance which I could summarise very quickly, that is, Labour's foreign policy should be one of independence and neutrality, it should recognise the need for social revolution on a world scale and oppose the forces of counter-revolution in periods of racism, that Ireland should regain its independence of speaking and voting at the United Nations; that Ireland should use this independence in the service of peace and the freedom of small nations and social change; that Ireland would vote for the seating of the Peoples' Republic of China and China's seat in the Security Council and in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

It is not new for the Labour Party to back motions of this nature or to take some action on them. They updated their policy again in 1978. The actual updating of it is too long for me to go into it but I might add that in 1980 their annual conference went further again on the question of neutrality. They set out the fundamental and positive principles of Ireland's national and international policy which is intertwined with their stance on neutrality.

The current debate on neutrality arises from a number of causes, the state of world tension and so on. It is not new for the Labour Party to be very concerned about the whole question of neutrality. It will be admitted that the party have been very far-seeing in their attitude to the whole question of neutrality and nonalignment. The problem for us all along is that this has not been a constitutional issue but more a policy stance. Whether it is practical to make it a constitutional issue is another matter. — I speak as an ex-soldier who went through the war and I do not want ever to see or hear tell of a war again or violence of any description. One of my concerns — perhaps it is my own lack of education, or understanding of the situation — is that with the great interdependence in the EC the more freedom people have, the more security and economic assistance there is, the more you owe them and consequently, one may not be able to be a conscientious objector. That is a thought that runs through my mind. I often wonder whether with our present involvement we will be able to live with that. I believe we can, as we have done so up to now. We have set a great example from Frank Aiken's time onwards and that is the way we should continue.

Mr. Norris

I thank Senator Harte for leaving some of his time to me. First, I welcome the speech of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was a very important speech, particularly in its concluding section, with which I agree thoroughly. I had a little more difficulty with the opening of the speech because I think that perhaps the Minister is disingenuous where he makes remarks such as the comment "It is important to note also that there is external pressure on us to make a defence commitment or to force us into a defence alliance". That depends upon an interpretation of the word "pressure".

I believe there is a growing pressure in Europe for us to get involved in a military commitment following the completion of the internal market in 1992. I say this because no less a person than Jacques Delors, President of the Commission, has made it perfectly clear that following 1992 it is his intention to try to ensure that there will be some degree of move towards the creation of a pan-European currency and the eradication of local currencies. At the same time, there will be full political union and he has specifically mentioned defence commitments in this. It is a question of whether or not you would interpret that as being pressure.

That does worry me, although I fully accept and I am very greatful that the Minister reiterated the fact that we entered a special provision at the time of the signing of the Single European Act and the entry of that particular instrument was one of the things that enabled me and many other people to vote for that Act. Despite that, it is very important for us to look back at what has been said in previous times. For example, at the time the referendum which enabled us to join the European Community was being introduced, the former Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch said on 16 July, 1969 column 622, Volume 24, of the Official Report of the Dáil:

We have no traditional policy of neutrality in this country like countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and Austria, who have declared themselves to have permanent policies of neutrality.

On 23 July, at column 1157, Volume 241 of the Official Report of the Dáil he said that in the event of our entry into the European Community:

we would naturally be interested in the defence of the territories embraced by the communities. There is no question of neutrality there.

It does seem that we are on dangerous ground, particularly if one takes this together with the debate in the Dáil on 11 March 1981.

An Cathaoirleach

Will you please give a reference for the speech of the former Taoiseach.

Mr. Norris

I am quoting from "A Singular Stance: Irish Neutrality in the 1980s". I can give the Official Reporter the specific reference subsequently. It was during the referendum debate. During the course of the debate on 11 March 1981 in the Dáil Deputy Haughey accepted that a particular hypothetical situation, which is the full political union of European Community states — that is one direction in which we are clearly moving; some perceive it to be at a greater pace than others but it is certainly the direction in which Europe is moving at the moment — would involve the end of Irish neutrality. There is another hypothetical case — Irish reunification — in which Deputy Haughey made clear defence arrangements for the whole island would have to be reviewed. These three items taken together make me worry becuase I believe there is some degree of external pressure.

Irish politicians have not fully come to terms with some of the complexities and contradictions of our much vaunted stance on neutrality. Externally this contradiction is perceived, is confusing to our allies and leads to the application of pressure from abroad, even in those subtle forms currently being engaged in by Monsieur Delors. This worries me precisely because everybody who speaks in favour of neutrality speaks about a kind of tactical neutrality. We are taking about military neutrality and tactical neutrality. Very frequently we hear that whereas we are militarily neutral and tactically neutral, we are neither ideologically nor morally neutral. The confusion that this leads to is made clear in the case of the situation in the Falkland Islands.

If you look at the documents that were produced by the Swiss Government detailing their attitude towards neutrality, they draw a difference between "ordinary" and "permanent" or "standing" neutrality. "Oridinary" neutrality is just the legal status of a country which does not happen to be at war or refuses to be engaged in a particular war whereas "permanent" neutrality involves an obligation not to begin a war, an obligation to defend the neutrality of the country and its independence and the secondary duties or antecedent effects of permanent neutrality. I am not convinced we have embarked upon permanent neutrality. We have embarked on what really only could be called a tactical neutrality while reserving also the right of ideological or moral neutrality.

I would also like to place on the record what I see as some dangerous consequences of a possible defence commitment within Europe. Suppose we were to enter into a military arrangement. I accept and I am extremely glad that the Minister has so categorically placed on the record such sentiments as that the militarisation of the European Community and the shift of a neutral country like ours into military alliance would send all the wrong signals, particularly in regard to the process towards greater openness and democracy in eastern Europe. Hear, hear, say I. I notice the Minister has once again slid into that context the statement that no one from outside is asking us to do so at present. I am not quite so convinced of that. I would like to point out, for example, what the consequences would be, supposing we were so asked and agreed.

I have in my possession a table drawn from the World Development Report, 1981: The World Bank, which makes it perfectly clear, by a comparative analysis between five neutral countries, including Ireland, and five small NATO countries, including obviously comparative countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Portugal that were Ireland to join any form of defensive military alliance within Europe it would automatically lead to a tripling of the defence budget. That tripling of the defence budget would mean that we would be more than one-third over the amount that in 1992 we would receive as a subvention from central funds in the European Communities. I would like to place very clearly on the record of this House that for us to engage in any form of defence pact within the European Communities there would involve a very substantial bill for the Irish taxpayer.

I should like to make a suggestion. I was very heartened at the notion that there is a general consensus — with a few notable and distinguished exceptions in the House — that we should remain neutral. I would like that neutrality to be a full, positive instrument of foreign policy. That is very important. I am not totally hoodwinked by the wonderful phraseology about the Constitution because I actually believe that a number of our actions in foreign policy terms are in conflict with a very vague element of the Constitution, that is, the Christian as well as the democratic element of our constitution. That, of course, depends on one's understanding of Christianity, I suppose, but I have no doubt that some of our actions have not met this test — certainly as it would be applied by me.

If we are serious about our neutrality and if we want to shift it from being this rather vague, puzzling concept, not understood by many of our own politicians, certainly not understood by the people of this country, unquestionably not understood by many of our allies, why do we not enshrine it in our Constitution? We have enshrined far more contentious elements than this one, about which there appears to be very considerable debate still possible.

I should like to end with one or two final observations. The first is that I believe we have an obligation, not only externally, as an instrument of foreign policy, to make clear our position in this matter. I believe that if we really believe in neutrality — and I listened with great interest to what was said by many Senators, including Senator Robb and Senator Haughey — then there should also be an internal policy, a policy of educating our own people through the school system so that our citizens, as they come to maturity, should not just have a catchphrase about neutrality but should know why the Irish people have adopted it and why it should become a permanent feature of our foreign policy.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am very happy to speak on this motion. May I say also that I am very happy with the part of the Minister's speech that Senator Norris has just quoted. It is a very strong and vigorous reaffirmation of one of the views I hold, that is, that simply to talk at this stage about another new military bloc in Europe is among the crazy, daft ideas I have heard. At a time when there is enormous impetus towards demilitarisation, I am absolutely flabbergasted that anybody could talk in terms that we should build up something to defend the concept of Europe against some external threat.

I am extremely happy that the Minister has put the Government's view on the line, that to talk about increasing militarisation at one of the most hopeful periods in the entire history of Europe — particularly the history of Europe since the Second World War — to suggest that we should somehow be talking the European Community into some sort of defence alliance which would defend itself against a threat I know not from where at this stage — the Minister indicates perhaps from above because there is more likely to be a threat from there than from anywhere else — is wrong. The idea, for instance, that we would have our military heading for the borders of Germany to defend us against some aggressor from the east, when the overwhelming evidence in West Germany is that the citizens perceive no threat to themselves from the east at present and indeed were clearly on record as believing that they were far more threatened by President Reagan than my Mikhail Gorbachev, is nonsense. The whole idea of talking ourselves into some sort of romantic commitment to defend this new Europe is an unutterable collection of twaddle. It is glorified and dressed-up militarism being given a cloak of ideological idealism, that we are going to be part of this grand new concept of Europe and, therefore, we must defend it.

The whole presumption that we must have militarism forever, the whole presumption that we must have large-scale armies and large-scale weapons of destruction forever, is a presumption which is articulated only by one significant figure on the world stage and that is Margaret Thatcher. She is the only one I know who has consistently argued over and over again that we need nuclear weapons to preserve the stability of the world. The rest of us have copped on to the fact that she needs nuclear weapons for reasons to do with her own perception of her own role in the world, but that we do not need defence alliances, we do not need weapons of mass destruction. We do not need any of that to defend the sort of vision we have of peace and stability in Europe.

We are being led by some people, in particular by a former Taoiseach of this country, in a direction which is contrary to the interests of the whole of Europe, contrary to the interests of this people. It needs to be said that it will be an interesting exercise to watch how the Members of this House vote on this motion. Quite clearly, if this House passes this motion without dissent, the members of Fine Gael have quite clearly repudiated the views of Dr. Garret FitzGerald.

I am not talking about the Fine Gael position. I am talking about the Seantor's suggestion that I am misrepresenting Dr. FitzGerald. If Senator Manning, who is in a position to be more intimate with Dr. FitzGerald's views than I am, tells me that what I have said is incorrect I will withdraw it. I am satisfied that that is what he said. If Senator Manning says I am wrong, I will happily withdraw the remark. He can tell me I am wrong.

Mr. Manning

I am saying that if a Senator is going to make a sweeping statement which is alleged to contain the views of another person, a person who has spoken on many occasions over the years on this subject, he should at least do the House the courtesy of giving us the exact reference. That is all I am saying.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am sorry, A Chathaoirligh. If I assert that the sky is blue I do not have to produce a quote if it is that widely known that Dr. FitzGerald had said he would not support, and that he did not believe we should support, Austrian membership of the European Community if they were not prepared to accept a commitment to defend Europe. If he did not say it, I am quite happy to withdraw it; otherwise Senator Manning is distracting the House and distracting me. It will be very interesting, therefore, that if Fine Gael support this motion they are making it clear that they take a different view from that. I am very happy about that becuase I am extremely worried that a major political party in this country, or at least influential voices within it, should be talking us into accepting something in slightly romantic terms which is nothing more than an attempt to militarise Europe. It is tragic, and Senator Norris has underlined in very clear and specific terms one of the consequences of that which is to destabilise our public finances again at a time when under circumstances of pain to considerable numbers of people they are beginning to be stabilised.

I did not anticipate the level of interruptions I got on it. I understood that Dr. FitzGerald's views were well advertised and well known. I must conclude Senator Manning accepts that what I said is correct representation since he does not assure me and will not tell the House I am Wrong. Therefore, I can simply say that whatever the reasons, it is welcome that Fine Gael are coming around to the position the rest of us have always held. I am, therefore, very happy to support the motion.

Professor Murphy

In winding up the debate I want to express my gratification at the numerous contributions that have been made and the near unanimous feeling of the House on this matter. I am particularly pleased at the unequivocal response of the Government to my motion. I take Senator Norris's point that perhaps some residual reservations about what may lie behind one or two phrases but I think that is being ungenerous. I am struck by the fact that for the first time the Government have not said we are neutral, of course, but some time in the future if we are expected to undertake our share of defence then, of course, we will. In other words, the Government have now effectively dissociated themselves from that string of statements which began away back with Seán Lemass and were continued through by Dr. Hillery, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy, when Foreign Minister and Mr. Lynch when he was Taoiseach and so on. It seems to me that we have a new position being expressed by the Government, certainly not the full positive permanent neutrality to which Senator Norris and I and many other Senators subscribe, certainly not that far but a great deal further in that direction than the Government have yet gone. This is quite an historic statement from the Government.

I think it is equally important that Senator Manning in his contribution to this debate almost a month ago was also quite unequivocal about the support of his party for neutrality. He was quite vehement that there was no intention on the part of Fine Gael of modifying that support or getting rid of neutrality, assuring us there was no conspiracy of any kind whatsoever. In fact, Senator Manning's contribution was equally important is clarifying the issue. May I recall briefly what he said: "While in Government and in Opposition we in Fine Gael have always sought disarmament and peace and we fully support the peace-keeping operations which were possible largely because of our policy of neutrality". He went on, "the very strong majority view in the Fine Gael Party is in favour of the policy as I have enunciated it and this is the policy of the party leadership". I think it was a very clear speech. In fact, towards the end of his contribution he said something which I could not have said better myself, difficult though that may be to believe.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Praise indeed.

Professor Murphy

He said that it is because "I believe that many of our partners in the Community see us as being far more useful within the European context as a full neutral country because we are capable then of intervening and making points at the United Nations which they could not do. It is a distinctive aspect of a European presence". I think that is a very good definition of neutrality in this dramatically changed period through which we are now living, that Irish neutrality is a distinctive aspect of a European presence.

I am very pleased with Senator Manning's contribution. I regret if he thought my original opening remarks smacked of snide abuse or anything of that kind. That is not my style. Perhaps sometimes when I feel forcefully about something I am fortiter in modo as well as fortiter in re.

I hope Senator Manning's contribution will have the effect of causing the individual members of his party to think again. If, as seems probable now, Fine Gael support this motion, if the House is unanimous in this motion, then it seems to me that the Fine Gael Party officially are sending a signal to the individual members of the party who, again and again, over the past year particularly have attacked our neutrality policy. Maybe they will think again about what they mean by the defence of Europe.

This glib word is never defined, we are never told what are our obligations of defence. As Senator Ryan says, are we to suppose that we send an Irish Army-contingent to the Rhine, who is threatening Europe, and so on? These things are never talked about. What is talked about obscenely in these contributions is the economic benefits of military research, the economic benefits of job creation through participation in a military pact. We are talking about an industry of death, that is what we are talking about and how people can subscribe to the immorality of that is certainly beyond my comprehension.

I do not wish to exacerbate the tension that grew up about Dr. FitzGerald's position. I am not a betting man but I would willingly place a modest sum on Dr. FitzGerald's attitude in this matter and that it was at the Schuman lecture that he said more than once, but certainly once, that it is irresponsible to encourage Austria's application to become member of the Community because her neutrality is incompatible with the aims of the European Community. I think that is his position. It would be interesting to see his own reaction to what I hope will be a unanimous vote of the House on this matter.

We have been overtaken in a way by the events of the last month. Since I spoke last all kinds of things have happened, the European Free Trade Association has been making interesting overtures to the European Community heralding perhaps the wider Europe which we all desire. Austria has made it quite clear that she has every intention of pushing forward her application for membership of the Community while retaining her neutrality. The leader of a West German parliamentary delegation who is in the country at the moment has entirely approved of that and hopes that Ireland will support Austria's application. It seems that those of us who are on that side are enormously encouraged by these developments.

Most of all, of course, the Gorbachev meeting had all kinds of significance. One of the most interesting people who was there on that day and who was interviewed briefly was Mr. Brendan O'Regan whose commitment to Ireland as a peace centre, as a model of peace, as a centre for summits between the great powers and so on is well known and is linked in his mind with his great work in Co-operation North. That Gorbachev occasion again pointed how important this country is in the wider context of the world, in the Afro-Asian context, the Soviets and so on. That has been enormously important.

Again and again, what was quoted here — this was done by Senator Connor also — were the remarks of various Fianna Fáil eminences over the decades from Seán Lemass, with characteristic brusqueness, onwards who said that Ireland would shed its neutrality ultimately in a European defence. What I am suggesting is that these statements were made in a very different time. They were made, in effect, in the context of a continuing Cold War. The scene has changed enormously and the Government, I think, understand that the scene has changed enormously. They are no longer bound by what was said by Seán Lemass and the others in talking about an ultimate commitment to a defence pact.

This has been a very significant debate. There are two basic questions. What kind of a European Community do we want? It has been made quite clear in this House that numerous Senators do not want a militarised Europe and that talk of European defence is about militarising Europe. The other question is that Ireland has a non-European presence in the world as well as a European importance. One of the reasons we must maintain neutrality is because it serves the ends of our contribution to the world outside Europe. Despite 1992, we will still have our relations with the small nations of the world who lie outside Europe.

This has been the first stage in a new debate on neutrality. We heard repeated calls for various people that we must debate the taboo and the sacred cow. Well, we are debating it and this has been a vigorous first instalment. Let the debate go on throughout the European election campaigns. In the meantime, it has been particuolarly gratifying for me, gratifying from the point of view of Senator Manning's contribution and gratifying from the Government's stance because whatever other political issues I have changed my mind on over my years in public life I am absolutely in no doubt whatsoever that neutrality in its fullest sense is the historic destiny that this country should be pursuing in the international sphere.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. S. Haughey

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 12 Apr 1989

Policy on Neutrality: Motion (Resumed).

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Apr 1989