As it is now 6.30 p.m. I call Item No. 4. For the benefit of new Members, I should say that this is a non-Government motion and as such is subject to the following time limits: the proposer has 30 minutes with 15 minutes to reply at the end of the debate; other Senators have 15 minutes; the overall time limit is three hours, one and a half hours of which is being taken now with the remainder next Wednesday.
Democracy in Eastern Europe: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move:
That Seanad Éireann warmly welcomes the moves towards greater democracy in eastern Europe and urges the Government to use its influence both unilaterally and within the European Community to encourage this process.
I want to thank the Leader of the House and the Minister for facilitating this discussion this evening.
We can all welcome recent historic events in eastern Europe especially since the movement towards greater trust, peace and freedom is a popular, bloodless, mass progression and I am sure all Members of the House note these historic steps with satisfaction and joy. We must wish our brothers and sisters success and happiness in their new freedoms and I hope they will evolve.
One year ago, I had the honour to participate at the first ever meeting of presidents of parliaments from both east and west which was held in Warsaw on 26 to 28 November 1988. Parliamentary speakers or presidents from some 30 countries attended, including eight from the eastern block countries. The meeting, speeches and discussions were of extreme interest to the Ceann Comhairle and to me; we had the honour of representing the Oireachtas. I took from that conference the obvious determination of the eastern block speakers for stronger and greater democraticisation in their countries and following from that I am not surprised in the least at the historic events and changes we have read about over the past number of weeks.
My impressions of Warsaw were of a beautiful city of history, tradition and culture and yet it brutally revived for me childhood memories during the Second World War: hardly any consumer goods for sale in the shops, shop after shop with nothing on the shelves, huge queues for commodities such as milk, bread and meat, the general population apparently living on minute incomes compared with the situation here in the West.
I availed of the opportunity of the biannual debate on the development of the EC to record my impressions of that visit and I advocated then the granting of Community aid to Poland which I am happy to note has been given, but only one consignment, I think so far. I appeal to the Minister of State to use all his influence, both unilaterally and at EC level, to expedite the continuing shipments to that country. The EC must not lose the opportunity to crown the dreams of the founding fathers of the EC to progress towards peace, unity and tolerance in our future, not just in western Europe but indeed in Europe as a whole.
On 23 June, 1989, on behalf of the Cathaoirleach, my colleague Senator Tras Honan, I accepted from his Excellency, Mr. Viatcherlav T. Boius of the Russian Embassy, a special message from the New Congress of the USSR People's Deputies addresses to the people of Ireland through the Seanad. With your permission, Sir, I propose to quote the message and leave it on the Table of the House. It states:
CONGRESS OF USSR PEOPLE'S DEPUTIES.
Address to Peoples of the World.
We, USSR People's Deputies, gathered for our first Congress in an atmosphere of glasnost and openness to lay down the legal foundation of all-round democratic renewal of our socialist society. As full-fledged representatives of the many-millioned Soviet people we are fully aware of the historic responsibility resting on us. We realize that the problems facing our motherland today are huge, and we proceed from the view that there is no alternative to radical restructuring in all the areas of its life. We have chosen this road firmly after thorough consideration, and we shall not abandon it.
Man with his joys and sorrows, hopes and cares is in the centre of our attention. We are convinced that socialist society does not have, nor can it have, other moral orientation than the interests of the people, aspirations and rights of free man.
Perestroika is an internal matter of the peoples of the Soviet Union. It was prompted by the vital needs of the country. But we do not separate ourselves from the world community, from the processes that determine the contemporary civilization, and we regard freedom of the individual, democracy and social justice as fundamental values on which the life of our society must be based.
We view perestroika as part of the progressing democratization of the world order, as the Soviet Union's contribution to the solution of global problems facing humanity. They are all interrelated and form a dangerous tight knot. It can and must be untied, but the pooling of efforts of the world community for the sake of its survival is necessary.
Perestroika radically alters our attitude to the world today. We are now open to the world and are prepared to co-operate with everyone for whom human life and dignity are supreme values, and we count on mutual understanding.
One cannot live by old rules and standards in the rapidly changing world. One cannot hope to consolidate one's security and ensure well-being while neglecting the interests of others. It is pointless to turn international relations into an arena of ideological wars. It is criminal to deplete the world economy by the arms race and to neglect to care for the preservation of the environment. No matter what barriers might divide us, we are all children of mother earth, and we have a common destiny.
Therefore we call for an end to animosity and strife among peoples. A new peaceful period in the history of humanity is possible, and this possibility must be translated into reality.
The Congress solemly assures peoples of the world that it assumes the responsibility for strict observance by the Soviet state of the principles of peaceful coexistence in respect to all states and peoples of the world.
On the basis of the new political thinking, the Congress of USSR People's Deputies established the principles by which our state must be guided in international affairs. They are, essentially, that:
the security of our country must be ensured above all by political means as part of universal and equal security in the process of demilitarization, democratization and humanization of international relations with the reliance on the United Nations prestige and potential;
nuclear arms must be eliminated as a result of talks aimed at disarmament and reduction of defence potentials of the states to the limits of reasonable sufficiency; use or threat of force to achieve some political, economic or other purposes are impermissible, respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are indispensable in relations with other countries;
dialogue and talks aimed at the balance of interests, and not confrontation, must be the sole way of solving international problems, and settling conflicts;
the Soviet economy must be included organically in the world economy on a basis of equality and mutual advantage, must actively participate in the shaping and observance of the rules of the contemporary international division of labour, scientific and technical exchange, trade.
Our Congress as the supreme body of state authority declares that the Soviet Union intends strictly to adhere to these principles in its foreign policy. Such is our foreign policy strategy from now on. Such is the open and honest line of the Soviet Union and perestroika in the international arena. Such is the Soviet people's choice.
We make a call to the peoples of the world, to the world public opinion to develop to the utmost the exchange of ideas and people, cultural and spiritual values, contacts and dialogue at every level and in every area, to look jointly and find mutually acceptable compromise to safeguard peace on earth, for the sake of wellbeing and progress of entire humanity.
That message from the People's Deputies of the USSR is the cornerstone, the basis for the great political changes we are witnessing in eastern Europe during these times and I am sure that Senators from all sides of the House will note with satisfaction the words addressed to us from the Congress of USSR. Reading and studying that historic message from one republic to another must surely give us all hope and confidence in our peaceful future. To my mind it underwrites peace, progress and prosperity. For, if the words of those Deputies have any meaning, they clearly indicate a new order which heralds the lessening of tensions and, therefore, a reduction in the huge cost of armaments, which will enable greater resources to become available for the ordinary humane requirements of peoples right across Europe, both east and west.
This is a very appropriate moment for this country to play a significant role in this whole ecomonic process. We should avail of our neutral status at the present time where we affiliate neither to the eastern bloc, the Warsaw Pact or NATO. Whether that is going to change or not, I do not think is important at this time. But, how should we respond, as a nation and as a member of the EC? This country for a number of years now, since the Cosgrave Government of the early seventies — in 1975 or 1976 they opened our first embassy in Moscow — recognised the importance that closer relations with the USSR would have for us. I hope we will be able to continue strengthening both our economic and cultural links with the USSR. I want to compliment the Government on the expansion of trade with the Soviet Union in recent times.
I hope that we, as a member of the EC would avail of the present atmosphere to press for closer co-operation with eastern and western Europe. It is some 16 years since the COMECON negotiations were first established. We can accept that progress has been, by any standards, relatively slow. It is true to say there is now a great opportunity, both at Council and at Commission level, to push forward the negotiations, with a view to an EC agreement with the German Democratic Republic, with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and with Yugoslavia, at least to increase diplomatic and trade relations with those countries. By doing that, my firm belief is that we will be then in a position to really savour the ideas that the founding fathers of the Community had in mind years ago when they sought to conserve and preserve peace in Europe by co-operating and joining together to ensure that by constant inter-governmental communications there would never need to be a reason for strife or war in the years ahead.
The present situation, where there is an ease and almost a freedom of movement in eastern European countries, has meant that last week for the first time at a meeting of the European Union of Christian Democrat Parties held in Malta on 9 November, representatives from new parties of central and eastern Europe took part. The chairman of that movement, President Emilio Colombo, had the great distinction of welcoming the Leader of Hungary's People's Party, Mr. Karczay. He has, I understand, requested admission for his party into the European Union of Christian Democrats and similarly, Mr. Sila-Novicki of the Polish Christian Democrat Party asked to apply for the opportunity of participating in the Union of Christian Democrats. We must welcome that. The freedom these people have now been accorded to travel to these meetings is a sign of a more peaceful future.
The recent demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps in Berlin and other European cities, have made it quite clear to the authorities that the populations of these countries want to have a peaceful co-existence in the years ahead. They want to be able to work towards greater and closer co-operation with the west. This is a tremendous opportunity for the Community to respond in fully and generously to the needs of these people.
Those who have had the opportunity of travelling in eastern Europe over the past number of years clearly see the very level of economic development. I shudder to think what life would have been like on this island if our economic situation as it was prior to 1948 had remained unchanged for the past 40 years. The Poles have a very old developed culture, an excellent standard of education, and it must be very difficult for them to accept that there has not been economic development. I am glad the masses of the people in a peaceful and bloodless fashion, have demonstrated their impatience and have forced the authorities to change their policies so as to give to the coming generation the right to choose the kind of democracy they wish to serve and live under.
At the meeting of the EC COMECON exploratory discussions last week, the Secretary of COMECON, Mr. Sytchev, indicated seven fields in which he felt co-operation could be developed from group to group——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Perhaps we might adjourn for 15 minutes? There is a division in the other House.
May I make the point, again — and we should insist or making the point — that it defeats me that it is beyond the capacity of the Government Whips to arrange for a pairing for Ministers who have business in this House? I am not saying this in any sense in a personal way to the Minister. I am making a point which has been made consistently from all sides of this House for a long time.
I would like to tell Senator O'Toole that today we talked about pairing Ministers for the benefit of the Seanad and it is being dealt with immediately. I do not know whether it will happen this evening.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is normal procedure that the Minister gets permission to leave. We will adjourn until 7.5 p.m.
May I finish this sentence and my speech will be concluded. I was saying that at last week's meeting of the EC COMECON discussions the secretary indicated seven fields in which he felt co-operation could be developed from group to group and he expressed a preference for bilateral co-operation between the EC and each COMECON country individually. They were: the environment, energy, transport, science and technology, standardisation of statistics and economic forecasts. I hope our Ministers will be able to support the aspirations of the eastern block. There are very sincere signs of peace and harmony in the future and I hope we will individually benefit in the years ahead.
Sitting suspended at 6.55 p.m. and resumed at 7.5 p.m.
I welcome this debate and I should like to thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to hold it and the Minister of State for attending. We are talking about Eastern Europe and the move towards greater democracy. We are urging the Government to use their influence, both unilaterally and within the European Community, to encourage this process. In rising to second this motion I should like to say that the debate is very appropriate and pertinent for this country in two senses. We are a sovereign State and, equally important, a member of the European Community on the point of assuming the Presidency at a time when these major events will be discussed within the Community. Again, as with many other areas since we joined the European Community, we appear to have an influence that is out of all proportion to our population and that is very satisfactory.
What has been happening in recent months, and especially dramatically in East Germany in recent weeks, are probably, without exaggeration, the most dramatic events in European politics for at least a generation because we are witnessing the collapse of communism. It is especially dramatic in East Germany because, as some Germans have been pointing out to us, we are not simply talking about the breakdown of communism and the breakdown of totalitarianism after a 25 to 40 year gap. The East Germans have been under two totalitarian regimes, the first being under Hitler. In fact, East Germany has not had any real freedom since 1936, more than 50 years ago, a gap of two generations. When we saw East Germans flooding into a free West Germany in recent weeks, it was an entirely dramatic event which had not been foreseen. None of the commentators in the international press, none of the major world statesmen, could conceivably have foreseen that events of this nature could have occurred at this speed.
It is probably pertinent to point out that the events which have unfolded in East Germany, Hungary and Poland, and beginning to happen in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, could not conceivably have happened without the tacit approval of President Gorbachev of the USSR. That underpins what is happening, because hundreds of thousands of people are not going to go into the streets if there is a fear that the troops are going to come at them as they did in Hungary previously and elsewhere. A compliment has to be paid to President Gorbachev in relation to that. The free world owes him a debt for the type of statesmanship we have seen in recent years. He is the key factor which makes these recent events completely different from previous risings in Central Europe.
There will, of course, be natural fears, given European history in this century. There are many people who use the pet phrase, people in France and Germany who do not like the reunification of Germany, that they like Germans so much that that is why they like to have two Germany states. I do not know that events since the last war need lead us to have such fears, because West Germany as a modern state has been an entirely democratic state and an impeccable member of the western European alliance and of the NATO alliance. Talk about reunification at this time, while there seems to be a logic that that should inevitably happen, is not being fuelled from either West Germany or East Germany. They are not seeking it, but I believe there is a certain inevitability about it.
We have a major role to play as a European Community member. We are one around a table with 11 others and one voice out of 12 that has a considerable influence. Recent events, putting them into context, shatter completely any Community pre-conceptions that might have existed concerning Europe. It has to be remembered that the European Community was formed out of a will to build up a free, united and strong Europe, but it was against the background of the non-availability of central European states for membership of the European Community because they were totalitarian and were east of a certain line and east of a certain wall. There has been a build-up of the European Community since the idea was conceived. We had, first, a Community of six countries which, in 1973, was extended to a Europe of nine countries when we, Britain and Denmark joined. Subsequently, we had Greece, Portugal and Spain joining and we may have Austria and Norway later. The European Community, and the leaders in Europe, are receptive to the Community being a large entity which can embrace within it a large number of states. It has been called a European Economic Community but it does not make narrow economic sense for the Germans, the British and the French to agree to the inclusion of Greece, Portugal or Spain, but it makes huge political sense because if we bring in the states on the periphery and can lift the income of the poorer countries on the southern flank, we are building up a united and a free Europe and a bulwark against future aggression.
Within that context, looking at the unfolding of recent events, the future possible non-alignment of the eastern bloc countries is a matter of great moment for the European Community because it is conceivable, and senior European Community figures have in recent days been pointing to this, that in the future countries such as East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary may well become aligned in some sense or other and possibly eventually be admitted to full membership of the European Community. We have a major role to play in that context.
Recently, West German attitudes have been positive. They have a commitment to route funds through the European Community to bolster the East German position, but that will be at a price and the price must be free elections. I do not know that we are talking immediately about reunification going ahead. There are many parallels with the position in Northern Ireland. They are seeking, firstly, reasonable elections, free speech and a fair deal, independent of flags. No doubt this is going to happen. We will need to watch certain positions because problems are going to arise. If we are going to have floods of eastern Europeans coming on to the protected job market in the European Community it will create problems for the young Germans looking for jobs in the work place and for Irish nationals who are seeking jobs in countries such as West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. However, we cannot speak narrowly against the momentum of these kind of events.
What has happened in recent years, where the Germans are concerned, has been that modern communication has played a huge part in bringing about changes. For a number of years there was a massive influence of West German television reaching through to most parts of East Germany. The build-up was there for all of this to happen. I have no doubt that in the fullness of time reunification will take place, because we are talking about the same people, the same culture and the same language. I do not think there is anything that can stop this happening. The exodus in the past weeks of up to a quarter of a million people from a single country is an enormous indictment of the type of totalitarian regime that existed there. There is great instability there at present and we must hope that this will be contained. Again, this is where strong action by countries such as West Germany and the European Community is needed. Our Government, and the Taoiseach as President of the European Community in the next six months, has, with his Minister for Foreign Affairs, a major role to play in that regard.
When we are speaking about eastern Europe as it relates to Ireland there are a couple of observations that should be made at this time concerning diplomatic representation. We are a very small country with limited resources and against the background of very limited resources we have remarkable diplomatic representation around the world. Our budget has been severely strained because our membership of the European community has forced us to have major diplomatic representation with each member state of the European Community, in addition to a permanent mission to Brussels. All of this has put an enormous strain on the budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Up to this time diplomatic representation in Eastern Europe was not a matter of high priority. It appears that the present position is that we have only one resident ambassador in the entire East bloc and that is in Russia. In the range of countries about which we have been speaking, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, East Germany, Poland and Hungary, there is not a single resident ambassador. We have representation in Vienna and they look after countries on the periphery, but I do not think that is entirely satisfactory. We will now have to face up to the problem whether we like it or not. If there is the political will to do things money can be found.
In the last two years there has been a huge development in trade between countries such as West Germany and Poland and between the United Kingdom and Hungary. We have an enormous amount of trade at present between the United Kingdom and Hungary. They have enormous clout. There is enormous trading going on and there are constant receptions and festivals. There is a two-month Magyar festival in London at present. There have been visits by heads of state and the to-ing and fro-ing that goes with that. There is revenue coming from that. It is not just the debit side of a balance sheet and the pouring out of money that we are dealing with. There is revenue coming from those contacts. Where we have shown great flair for such a tiny country with three million people since we joined the European Community is in developing the kind of representation we have abroad.
The time has come to take a very serious look at Eastern Europe. There is a certain inevitability about the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs being forced to start opening up on that flank. If they are going to be part of a free Europe there will be major interests where this country is concerned. They are being neglected at this time. I am not saying that in any political sense and I am sure an alternative Government would have the identical problems and strains. This is the time for review and this is the time when it is pertinent to look at these issues. I grew up against the background of the end of the Second World War, the advent of communism, the imprisoning of Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary, a country which was largely Catholic. We all grew up with a very strong, negative attitude to communism. I am certain that was reflected in the political and commercial connections with such countries but we have to take these shackles off now.
Under the surface in all these countries there are good people who light candles in dark hours. In Russia today one can see the re-opening of monastries and churches; the Faith never died. There are contacts on which we can build to a great extent. On a much broader front, and on a political front, the people in Eastern Europe need our help as much as they do that of any other people in the free world. I urge the Government, on our behalf, to play a generous and interested role in their interests and in the future of Europe.
We on the Government side very much welcome this timely motion and the very detailed and comprehensive speeches we had from Senators McDonald and Staunton. All the sentiments which have been expressed by the proposer and seconder of the motion are ones with which Members on all sides could warmly agree with. It is a sea of change in the whole situation in Europe and, indeed, in world politics generally. Certainly, few of us who were in the debate last week in relation to the implication of changes for Ireland outlined in the NESC Report on the European Community could have imagined that within a matter of hours after that the Berlin Wall would at long last be broken. It is, I suppose, relevant in that for the past 40 years the world, and particularly Europe and our country, has been frozen in a sort of time warp from the effects, many of them apparently permanent and yet in reality as Senator Staunton has suggested, very artificial and superficial, of the second of the two World Wars that have occurred in Europe in this century. They have all centred around Germany. Germany is essential to Europe.
The changes which are occurring now, which are going to affect this country, and which we greatly welcome in an emotional sense and I hope also in a practical sense, mean that we are going to become much more peripheral in many ways to Europe as it existed until a few days ago. We must be very glad now that we joined the European Community, very glad that we took such practical measures as joining the EMS but still the realities have fundamentally changed. Germany is once more not only economically but politically the major power in Europe. For good or ill as that may be, that effectively is the reality. Let us not imagine that it is a reality that is not seen by Mr. Gorbachev, and his colleagues in the Soviet Union, and let us not imagine either that it is necessarily one that they greatly welcome and, from their point of view, with very good reason.
We should, perhaps, also consider why these changes are taking place first of all in that part of eastern Europe which is at present the Soviet Union. It would seem that on the one hand there is that genuine and deep feeling which all people have for freedom. At the end of the day no matter how it is suppressed it bubbles back up to the surface again. There are also some economic realities. The situation facing the Soviet Union was that it could not continue with the enormous arms burden which it had undertaken. Its economy was tottering into total chaos. Curiously enough perestroika and glasnost and other political changes, no matter how much they may be welcomed, in the long term are perhaps more important from an economic point of view, but at present the economy of the Soviet Union is going further downhill. One of the big objections that people on the streets have from what we hear is that goods are becoming even scarcer. Many people are complaining either that perestroika has not gone far enough or that it has gone too far. We should also recollect that whether it was Tzarist imperialist Russia, the Soviet Union, or whether it is this apparently new democratic Russia the strategic aims of Russia and its requirements are not basically going to alter. They may be expressed, hopefully, in better ways and in more peaceful ways but they are still there. We would be very foolish to live in cloud-cuckoo land imagining that they do not exist.
One of the other reasons for perestroika, glasnost and the rapprochement with Germany which would have had people shuddering 40 years ago — some people are shuddering today over them — is the necessity for the Soviet Union to have the financial and economic support of Germany. That is reality and it may turn out to be a very good reality. So we come back to Germany over and over again when we look at this situation.
It was within the Soviet Union itself where we saw the first cracks beginning to appear in Listonia, Latvia and in Lithuania. It was, after all, as a result of a German-Soviet pact that these countries came under the aegis of the Soviet Union and are now attempting to reassert themselves. There is a somewhat similar situation in the Ukraine. Senator Staunton has referred to the persistence of the beliefs of the Christians mainly in the Ukraine. Ukrainians do not regard themselves as Russians; they are Ukrainians. Whether Russia, or the present Soviet Union, can really continue on a course which at present effectively means that the next largest state in terms of area, of industry and of population can continue to move towards autonomy, is a question which gives a lot of worry to those in charge in the Soviet Union.
Closer to our own hearts, and we have many direct contacts, is the situation in Poland. Of course we welcome the improvements that have taken place there but there are a lot of Poles who are finding them very difficult. It is true there is a Catholic Prime Minister in Poland now. Solidarity, effectively with their allies, are in Government. They are having to impose economic measures which are very harsh and which are probably at present totally inadequate. It is not really a very happy situation. There, again, Germany comes back into the picture in a context in which those of us in the EC have got to pause and consider the situation. Herr Kohl of Germany is now giving massive financial support to Poland. That was agreed at a recent meeting with the Polish Premier. That support will be coming directly from the Federal Republic of Germany to Poland despite earlier suggestions that this should be an EC initiative or should in some sense be channeled through or associated with the European Community. This is a very major break. It has occurred almost immediately and it has great implication for the future.
In East Germany itself the walls are breaking down now. One is probably going to have some form of union, be it direct or indirect, between the two Germanys and this is greatly to be welcomed. There has been the tragedy of separated families and so on, the human tragedies involved, but that wall was not lightly erected. It was put there for very strong economic and political reasons and it is now being dismantled. Among the many effects is that the two Germanys will now probably become an even stronger united economic and financial unit or pair of units whether or not they actually have full political unity. The only objection the Soviet Union has indicated to unity between the two Germanys is that associated with the Warsaw Pact which itself is beginning to look irrelevant.
I did the photographs for my own MSc thesis as a medical student in Czechlovakia and got out just in time when the Soviet troops moved in during the Dubcek Spring. Indeed, it is fascinating that Mr. Dubcek 20 years later, is now being spoken of as a new leader of Czechoslovakia. Again, this was a cultural and economic centre of Europe. It will be total change if once more Czechoslovakia becomes involved directly with the rest of us in Europe.
Hungary is being put forward in some sense as a model. Indeed, there have been changes in Hungary which predated those in the Soviet Union. The economic situation there is not very satisfactory either. Many people in Eastern Europe, as well as in the Soviet Union, are going to find, unfortunately, that democracy in itself does not provide a sudden key to economic prosperity and happinness.
Other countries such as Bulgaria, Romania and Albania are still attempting to maintain the rigid Stalinist mode which now seems to be collapsing so quickly. We could look at them all. There is no time to go through all the possible aspects. I would just like to take a couple of other points. Over the last 40 years we have seen this fossilised, artificial situation in two powers, one of which was totally removed from Europe and the United States and the other which was basically in many ways an Eurasian power rather than a purely European power, whose economic might, great though it was, was not anywhere nearly equal to that of Europe. For a time, because of political and military success in 1939-1945 war — and again whatever the rights or wrongs of that war — let us not forget that it needed a union of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and other countries to defeat Germany which is, effectively, an indication of the enormous strength which that country has, which can be exercised for good or ill. We are seeing this change involving Germany, which particularly affects ourselves in all sorts of ways. Only a couple of weeks ago, Senator Staunton and I were discussing some of these aspects with German parliamentarians. A few weeks previously they would not have believed that this sort of thing could happen and they are still completely dumbfounded by what has occurred. There are still certain realities there. We live in very interesting times. The trend towards democracy in the Soviet Union seems to be continuing. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this trend will continue. We hope it will. There are enormous strains and pressures. There are doubtless many Soviet military men and other people who are talking — just as the Chinese leadership did — and long for some way of suppressing present events.
Some of the problems which the Soviet Union face are pretty well intractable and could well lead to considerable instability. As the Chinese said, these are very interesting times. They have a proverb — or rather a curse — to live in interesting times. We must welcome what is happening. We must do all we can, peripheral though we are, to help in this process and to see that it turns out to the benefit of all the peoples of Europe and that the EC, as the Treaty of Rome says, will lay the foundations for an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe. In some ways, the European Community as such has probably never been more threatened with disintegration.
Needless to say, I support the motion. I cannot possibly imagine anybody opposing it. The pace of events has been so rapid and the future is so uncertain that we should not jump to conclusions.
People are speaking of the death of communism. Certainly what we are witnessing are the death throes of bureaucratic state socialism. I hope we are not witnessing the death of communism. We have to distinguish between the rigidity of Marxist-Leninist dogma or doctrine, on the one hand and, on the other the vision which inspired the October Revolution in the Soviet Union in 1917. I am still in favour of that vision. There is no vision like that in the West. We were so fearful of that vision in the West, and in this country in particular, that it conditioned our whole attitude towards eastern Europe over the whole of the period since 1917 and particularly during the years of the Cold War. I hope the vision of the Winter Palace and of Red Square will not perish, because that vision is the vision that poverty can be eliminated and men and women can live in social equality and harmony. There is a thirst there for justice which I do not see in any of the western ideologies.
The newspapers, perhaps, were too quick to draw a lesson from the dramatic events of the last few days. I am not altogether sure that the phrasing of this motion does not share something of the same error, namely, that the East Germans and the East Berliners were, of course, rejoicing in a new-found freedom of movement. They thronged to West Berlin for all kinds of reasons, not least to wonder at the glories of consumerism, but, at the same time, many of them were not ready accept the full values of the consumerist society which they saw.
Let us make no mistake about it, what has happened in the last few days is not a victory for capitalism. It does not prove that the capitalist values have won out. It means the eastern Europeans, while wanting to preserve what they have achieved, want to share the better values of the west. It is not a simplistic alignment between freedom on the one hand and tyranny and oppression of the other. Let us remember that while in the west we cherish values like freedom of movement and freedom of speech, in a sense these are only formal freedoms. In the real world in which we live very few people have the opportunity to exercise freedom of movement or freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Marxists would claim that freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment and freedom from inability to be treated when you are ill are the real, substantial freedoms. I would suggest that we are in a situation where the people of the East, if we may just describe them generally, have a thirst for the better things in western values but they are not going to abandon some of their own vision which is a very noble vision. A better social democracy is what they are looking for. There is, I suggest, a lot more to inspire them still in that vision of 1917 than there is in Bush's America, with its glaring contrasts of wealth and poverty, in Thatcher's England, and indeed in Haughey's Ireland.
As previous speakers have pointed out, it is not just East Germany. All of eastern Europe is now in turmoil, except the curious state of Albania and the grotesque and tyrannical régime in Romania. Even in the last few days, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia have also indicated signs of change.
Again, as Senator Staunton pointed out, so much depends on the Soviet Union. It is now widely accepted that the reasons — as Senator Staunton also pointed out — why the East Germans could demonstrate without fear of reprisal or retaliation or fear of Soviet tanks was that they had been guaranteed by Gorbachev that the Soviet Union would not interfere. So much depends on him and on like-minded people in his circle.
Senator Staunton and I were having a word or two during the break about this. I said that in the normal course of events one man is such a fragile thing that even if Gorbachev were to vanish from the scene there would be other Gorbachevs who, perhaps, would carry through the aims of perestrokia. On reflection, we would all be fearful about that. What is special about Gorbachev is his own personal charisma. Rarely in the history of the 20th century were mankind's hopes pinned so much on one man. Truly, if the phrase in the song can be applied to anyone, it is he “who has got the whole world on his hands”.
No one can predict what is going to happen. The Soviet Union has its own continuing turmoil with nationalist fever asserting itself in the various republics and, indeed, in Russia itself. One of the factors in the situation is, of course, Russian nationalism and how Russian nationalists will react to the peripheral nationalisms, if you like, around the borders of the Soviet Union. Obviously, we must do what we can. The West must do what it can to promote stability, peaceful change and not exploit the situation for its own purposes. Above all, the West must make clear that this is a time for not brandishing military threats or claiming that NATO is the essential bulwark of our freedoms. Rather we must learn from the lesson of bloodless revolution, which has been taking place before our eyes, to reduce the arms race and to look anew at NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The really startling fact now facing us is that if this peaceful change goes on — and it is a very big "if"— then NATO has no longer a justification, nor has the Warsaw Pact, nor the United States military presence in Europe.
One of the implications of what is happening now is that Europe, in the proper sense, is having its own power. In the last few days we have begun to talk about Europe in the correct sense of the ancient Continent of Europe, not just a section of Europe, which for so long we used as a misnomer to describe the European Community. It is Europe's power. The United States must realise this. It is for Europeans to try to realise their vision of a Europe stretching from the Atlantic — or, to put it in a more homely phrase, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, which you will appreciate, stretching from Kerry to the Urals. In that vision we, as a small State, have some part to play. I said in this House before, and in the debates on foreign policy, that Irish people tend to swing to two extremes — one extreme is to say to ourselves we do not matter at all, we are of no importance; we are only of peripheral importance; the other is to exaggerate, Southern Star like, our place in world affairs. It so happens that we do have a role to play, particularly in the next six months, during our Presidency of the Community.
Reference has been made here tonight to the prospect of German unification. I suggest it is far too early to talk in these terms. The East Germans themselves have made it clear that despite whatever rush of blood to the head that people like Chancellor Kohl got in the last week or two, unification of Germany is a long way down the road. It is a prospect that does not appeal to many of us, certainly not to many Europeans who have good reason to dread and to fear what a united Germany did to them before, and it does not appeal to nations as far apart as France and the Soviet Union. It would be all very well if the Fourth Reich of 77 million people were to be a peaceful Fourth Reich in a peaceful Europe outside of armed alliances. That, perhaps, is a prospect that we could look at with equanimity, but certainly not a re-unified German nation state as it was in 1939. Indeed, I understand from my colleague, Senator Norris, that Mr. Gorbachev made it clear in his speech today that that kind of united Germany is certainly not a prospect the Soviet Union is going to stand for. There has been a lot of facile talk about that.
We in Ireland should not approach what is happening in any selfish spirit. There is a tendency already to say, "Is there going to be less for us in the European Community treasure chest?" This, I suppose, in effect means the German treasure chest. It would be very shortsighted and very selfish were we to look at these momentous events from the point of view of whether we were going to get less from the begging bowl. I hope our vision would be larger than that.
One lesson we could learn — and we might well be fearful about this — is that if people power has won the day in East Germany there is no guarantee that there will not be a demonstration of people power in this State if it does not get its social and economic act together and if it persists in tolerating the spectre of poverty among a large number of its citizens. Also, it seems to me an entirely mistaken moral has been drawn by some people in suggesting that because the border between East and West Germany and the Berlin Wall is coming down, then that somehow makes the partition of Ireland equally irrelevant. Of course, there is absolutely no similarity between the two. If any people power has been demonstrated in this island in recent years it has been in the massive mobilisation of the Protestant people of Ulster against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Our Presidency of the EC will give us some room to hope to influence events, but above all — this is my final word — I hope we will now stop talking about our obligations to participate in a European defence pact. It seems to me that the people who kept on emphasising our obligations to become some part of a European military alliance were always out of step with what was happening in these last few years. I am more than ever convinced that what has happened in the last few weeks has made our neo-Cold War warriors look totally irrelevant, or at least they have been preaching the wrong kind of doctrine.
The Minister of State was present when he had this debate on neutrality. He will remember I was the sponsor of that debate and that I emphasised how important it is in a changing Europe that an unarmed and peaceful Ireland should give that kind of peaceful witness. That is now more important then ever in the months ahead. The times are so momentous that an historian particularly, perhaps, can only stand trembling on the threshold of history but hoping that this is not only the prelude to a new and peaceful Europe but to a new and peaceful world and that Tennyson's Utopian vision of the federation of the land, the parliament of the world, is now in its first phase.
During the past week while we here in Seanad Éireann were debating the economic considerations placed before us in the NESC report we were suddenly catapulted into consideration of the political unity of Europe. It is interesting that Europe now takes centre stage of world events precipitated by President Gorbachev's glasnost policy. Little did we realise some months ago, perhaps 12 months ago, when he set the wheels in motion that movement would be so rapid. Another world power leader, President Bush, responded, prophesying that the nineties would be the decade of democracy. There have been some cautionary responses from French and British politicians re the development of another superpower in the event of the re-unification of Germany, premature fears and ones that will take considerable development in the next number of years. Of course, there will be a fundamental transformation of the European Continent as the Eastern countries move towards greater democracy. All those words that we have become accustomed to — European Monetary Union, farm policies, budgets — now move out of the limelight as the ideal we sought, and still seek, seems more attainable.
Looking back through the stages of history. Europe has come through many difficult periods — periods of disintegration, empires collapsing, followed by reunifications. We can remember all the words from our history books. Surely it is history repeating itself.
I come to the spirit of the motion. How can we in Ireland, how can our Government encourage, assist and facilitate this rapid surge towards democracy? In many ways, I would suggest. We have a particular role to play as a neutral nation. We are in a unique situation to assist in allaying the fears that may still lurk in the minds of the French and British in relation to, for example, the prospect of a united Germany. We are a committed member of the Community without being a member of a military alliance. We can empathise with Eastern countries overshadowed by a superpower, seeing that we have been overshadowed by Britain for so much of our political life and history. We can appreciate how we felt in the fifties. I can remember the fifties as a time of widespread emigration. We can understand the predicament now of these migratory people coming West.
It is interesting that our thirst for freedom is still not satisfied in relation to a divided Ireland. This is a very important thing that we have to think of now. We have turned our backs. We see these people thirsting for freedom. We still have to complete our island if we are to talk about real freedom. Our diplomatic skills, as Senator Staunton mentioned a moment ago, will be called into play now in an effort to defuse the possible tensions that may arise in relation to national boundaries.
Our cultural ties with Eastern Europe can be traced back to the migration of the Celts, spreading out from India through the Middle East, right through southern Europe, right through eastern Europe. You could honestly say that our roots are meeting again. Our hands are clasping across mainland Europe. We have a deep appreciation in our country of the diversity of cultures, languages and contrasting landscapes. These span over a long period. Again I say history is repeating itself, but economic considerations always come to the fore. They must be considered in the context of the wider community. We ask ourselves: how will we respond?
Much has been said already about our peripheral position. We have fears, perhaps, that we will be even more peripheral in the light of a more consolidated, mainland. From an agricultural view point, eastern European agriculture is poorly developed, but with an enormous capacity to produce. Funding, which we have fought hard for, from the central coffers of the developed centre will be stretched. Hopefully, we will respond to the greater challenges which face us as full members of the European Community. We will have to show generosity of spirit. We will have to make sacrifices.
Again I refer to Northern Ireland. Have we shown that ability in the light of Northern Ireland? Have we succeeded in removing that localised frontier, particularly if it called upon us to make economic sacrifices?
This brings me to the concept of freedom. What constitutes freedom? I think what Senator Murphy has said would give us food for thought for many a debate. The constant stream of young and old in pursuit of freedom, perhaps, causes us to look cynically at the El Dorado that many eastern people possibly expect to find. Some have found this El Dorado and called it the decadent West, adoring the false god for consumerism. Are those people leaving behind secure employment, availability of housing, access to education, and access to health services? Are they moving into the rat race of a highly competitive society, acquiring the new stresses of that acquisitive society in a world of ever-changing values?
Again I refer to Senator Murphy's reference to social justice. Will they find social justice in the western world? We Irish must apprise ourselves at this crucial moment in history and question our concern for our European neighbours, and, also, especially, for our Third World kindred who are queueing up too for aid from the European Community. Will they be pushed further down the queue for that economic support?
We have experienced the delicate and fragile make-up of a new state. We have experienced the newness of independence. We have experienced the traumas and tensions which brought us to our present situation, a member state of the European Community growing, hopefully, towards full integration. It behoves us to encourage and assist the democratisation of these countries in a practical way through economic help within the European Community and through sharing with them and helping to recreate the true freedoms of equality and choice.
The unknown stretches before us. We fear it. We are in a position now to evaluate our concept of democracy and freedom, which has certainly been tarnished through complacency. On a more positive note, perhaps we are entering a new, powerful and peaceful period in the history of mankind. We are survivors. We have journeyed through many revolutions — intellectual revolutions, political revolutions and technological revolutions. It is incumbent on us, who have suffered so much and have gone through the exeperiences that our Eastern neighbours are going through now, to encourage them, to respond to their needs and to help them fulfil their role in a new sense of freedom.
Debate adjourned.