First, I should like to compliment the Minister on the very comprehensive survey he gave of the activities of his Department in the course of the year. I should like, too, to echo what the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera, said in his opening remarks on the Estimate. He pointed out that the Department of External Affairs was an easy target for uninformed and perverse criticism. That is so. It is so, not merely here, but in nearly every country; it is always easy to criticise the expenditure of a Department, such as the Department of External Affairs, on a popular basis because, as far as the public are concerned, they see little or no tangible results from the work of such a service. There is no evidence of any return from a foreign office. That, however, is a very short-sighted viewpoint and one which is largely uninformed. Nowadays, the functions of a diplomatic or foreign service are very different from what they were in the past.
I think there are very few of the old type of diplomat left in any foreign service. The functions of the diplomatic service nowadays are largely connected with economic matters, with trade, with tourism, with economic information and also with acquiring a democratic goodwill in other countries. These are all difficult things to estimate in terms of money value. It is very hard to attribute any direct benefits that result to the actual activities of the Department concerned. The question of acquiring additional markets, of maintaining, firstly, and expanding, secondly, exports looms largely in the tasks which are assigned to our missions abroad. Likewise, the obtaining of economic information is of considerable importance in the work which the Department has to do.
The Leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera, suggested a number of years ago when I was Minister for External Affairs that it might be possible to do away with a number of our missions and to arrange for an exchange of diplomatic information and relations through the Council of Europe at Strasbourg. I notice that again on this occasion he made the same suggestion. I do not want to sound catty from a political point of view by reminding the House that when the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity of effecting such a change he did not effect it because I do not think it would be a full answer. I think the answer is this. I examined the matter and discussed it, not merely with officials in the Department but with foreign Ministers of two or three of the smaller European countries such as Luxembourg and Iceland, which are much smaller countries than ours. The difficulty is that a lot of the work carried on by diplomatic missions is work of an economic nature which requires the presence on the spot of representatives of the Government.
I might be permitted to take one very small illustration that occurs to my mind. We export some not very significant quantity of periwinkles. It always brings a smile to the face of anybody to whom you mention it because I do not think we eat periwinkles very much ourselves here and it sounds quite an insignificant business, but nevertheless they are eaten on the Continent and in France in particular, and we export a not insubstantial quantity of them. It runs into some £10,000 or so. That money finds its way direct into the pockets of some of the inshore fishermen and the small farmers on the western seaboard. This may sound completely unimportant in the context of our general trade but, nevertheless, it is useful to the economy of our inshore fishermen and small farmers around the western seaboard and it is important money to them.
For a long time, the French Government refused to allow imports of periwinkles into France and that created a certain amount of difficulty. It was difficult by reason of the fact that the control of imports of fish—and periwinkles came under the heading of fish—was not under the Department of Trade in France but under the Department of Fisheries, which is a very conservative Department. I know that our embassy staff in Paris had to devote an amazing amount of time and work in order to be able to change the attitude of the French Department of Fisheries. This may sound ridiculous but nevertheless I merely mention it as an instance of the type of work which a mission has to do. It has not merely to represent the country from the consular and the diplomatic point of view but the bulk of its work is, and should be, mainly economic and trade. This work is unknown and completely unpublicised, and therefore the public generally do not appreciate its importance.
From the larger point of view of the importance of the work of the foreign service, let me remind the House of the importance of our foreign service during the war, of our diplomatic relations during that period. I think it is quite true that were it not for the fact that we have such a large population of Irish origin in the United States, undoubtedly the country would have been occupied during the war. The work of our foreign service in the United States played an important rôle in ensuring that this nation was able to maintain its neutrality during the war. The task of our foreign service in the United States is not purely diplomatic; it has also the task of keeping in contact with the extremely important and influential Irish-American opinion in the United States. These things could not be done from Strasbourg.
Inversely, if I may reverse the position, probably if any one individual more than another was of assistance to this country in ensuring its neutrality during the last war it was the German Minister here, Dr. Hempel. I have always regarded the attitude of Dr. Hempel during that period as one of considerable assistance to the Government and to the country in enabling the country to maintain its neutrality. The fact that we had a German Minister here probably enabled us to ensure a certain freedom from attack from the German side. I merely mention these matters as very different illustrations of the importance of a foreign service. However, it is an importance which it is hard to assess in monetary terms and hard to get the public to appreciate or understand because they have little or no knowledge or information available to them as to the work which has to be carried on by a foreign service.
It is quite obvious that under modern conditions, particularly having regard to the tremendous advances which have been made in methods of transport, methods of communication, methods of warfare and so on, no nation can now live in isolation. Even if we desired to live in isolation, we could not do it. It is therefore essential that we should try to have as efficient a foreign service as we can manage. Let me also remind the House that by comparison of size, of population, of national income, our expenditure on our foreign service is smaller than that of any other country in Europe.
There are one or two suggestions that I should like to make in regard to the work of the Department in the hope that the Minister might give them his consideration in planning the future work of the Department. The first is that I think it would be well if the Minister impressed on our missions and the staffs of our missions that the maximum importance, particularly in the present situation, should be given to the development of trade and tourism and also the obtaining of economic information.
I do not want this to be taken as a criticism of the work which is being done by the Department but I think it is necessary to emphasise that the most essential nature of the work of the Department, apart from one or two key-posts, is the finding and expansion of export markets. I know that we have a separate organisation. Córas Tráchtála, which is primarily charged with the task of promoting exports. I know that it has done useful work but I think it is necessary in the present situation to make it quite clear to our diplomatic staffs that the fact that Córas Tráchtála exists and is charged with the task of promoting exports in no way relieves them of the responsibility cast upon them to try to expand our export markets.
I have even wondered in that connection whether it might not be possible to evolve some system whereby either the mission in a given area or particular officers could be given a bonus where they can show an actual increase of, say, not less than £100,000 in the exports to their particular area. I know that this sounds completely contrary to the normal Civil Service procedure but we have to face realities. We know that in ordinary trade and business commercial travellers and representatives get commission and bonus on their sales. I feel that that additional incentive, either an award, if you like, or an actual cash commission, would make the officials of the Department appreciate the vital importance of increasing export markets. It may quite probably be said that that is ridiculous, that you should not offer any additional award to a civil servant, that he is paid to do his job, that he should do it in any case. That is the facile answer that could be given to the suggestion.
We are interested in getting results. The question of getting an increase in export markets is vital and any step we could take to secure that end should be taken. But, primarily, I should like to see it emphasised to everyone of our diplomats that one of the chief functions which the Government expects from them in the present circumstances is to secure additional export markets. I should like to have it pointed out to them that the fact that Córas Tráchtála exists, that the fact that possibly foreign trade is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Commerce, in no way relieves them of the obligation of striving whole time in an effort to expand our foreign trade.
The second suggestion I should like to make is in regard to a better use and dissemination of technical and economic information which is obtained through the Department mainly from international organisations. I feel that we are not getting the full value of our association with international organisations because we do not make adequate use of the very valuable technical and economic information which emanates from these organisations. Organisations such as F.A.O., O.E.E.C., Council of Europe, E.C.E., all publish extremely valuable technical information. The only complaint one can have is that it is too voluminous and that those of us who receive it or keep in contact with it find it hard to assimilate it and hard to sort it out. That difficulty should not be a reason for not making full use of it.
The feeling I have—and this is in no way criticism of the Department—is that this mass of documentation comes into the Department, that probably as a matter of routine some copies of it are sent to other Departments, that the documentation finally finds its place in a neat little compartment in some office but is never read by any person who could really derive benefit from it. It may be read by the officers of the Department of External Affairs. I have no doubt that they do read it themselves and pay attention but, inasmuch as most of this information is of a technical nature and is intended for specialists in different technical fields, it is particularly important that some steps should be taken to ensure that it reaches those who are dealing with the subjects dealt with, those to whom it would be of benefit. I know that that is not really so much a question for the Department of External Affairs because all that the Department can do is to pass on the bundle of data, for instance, about mining, afforestation, cattle or atomic energy, or whatever the subject may be, to some Department and that there the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs ends.
I am glad that the Taoiseach is here while I am making this suggestion because I think it is a matter that the Taoiseach might well take up with the Departments concerned and try to have some system to ensure that this documentation, much of which is extremely valuable and produced by some of the best experts in the world, should be made use of. Unfortunately, we often have a tendency to think that we have nothing to learn. We have a considerable amount to learn, particularly in these times. Modern scientific development and modern economic developments have made tremendous strides. I often feel that we are left a good deal behind and that full use is not made of the information which is so readily available to us by reason of our membership of these organisations.
One suggestion in relation to this occurs to me. I do not know whether or not it is feasible, but it certainly would be of convenience to members of the House and also to civil servants in the different Departments. The possibility occurred to me of having one central library in some Government Department, or here, in which all this documentation could be kept together and made available to members of the House and the officials of the different Departments concerned, so that they can resort there and have somebody find out any particular item they require. It may be said that one will get a lot of that documentation in the Library. That is not so. The Library in the House here does not receive one-tenth of the documentation and could not house one-tenth of it, if it got it. The one criticism in regard to international documentation is the mass of it. Therefore, it is essential to have somebody who will really sort it out.
Another suggestion occurs to me. It is hardly a suggestion; it is possibly more in the nature of a query mark. It relates to the recruitment of the staff of the Department. The foreign service branch of the Department of External Affair has to be built up over a long period of time. It is very hard to determine, when a young man who has just left college and who enters the Department of External Affairs or, indeed, any branch of the Civil Service for that matter, whether or not he will be really suited to the work. That applies particularly to a Department like the Department of External Affairs, where a special type of experience, training and outlook is necessary.
Remember that most people who are on foreign service will, of necessity, have to spend a large proportion of their lives abroad—possibly on their own. They need to have a particularly good training and, if you like, a moral standard for the work which they have to undertake. There is a period of probation in the Department at the moment in regard to Third Secretaries. I think it is one year or possibly two years, but that probationary period is regarded as something formal. I do not think I ever remember a Third Secretary being told that he would do no good and that he should move off and get another job. Once you are admitted as a Third Secretary, you are there for life, whether suitable or not.
I am not criticising the Department, and I am not criticising the personnel of the Department, but it occurred to me that we might get better results if we could take in a greater number of Third Secretaries, in the first instance, and weed them out more stringently after a period of three, four or five years and transfer them to another Department, if they did not prove suitable. I know that is a rather harsh thing to say, but, in a small service like ours, it is essential that every single member of the staff should be of the highest material possible.
Linked with this is the question of training. I wonder whether it would be possible to arrange with our universities here for a course of lectures in international affairs, particularly in international economics. This course of lectures, if organised, could become one of the prerequisites of admission to the service; but, in addition, I think it would be helpful to the members of the existing staff if they could annually, when they are in Ireland, undergo a course of lectures. I think that no members of the staff or of this House would lose by having an annual refresher course of some kind, particularly dealing with international economics and the international situation.
This may be difficult to arrange, but if a course in international economics were arranged by one of the universities, I am sure it would be availed of by the different faculties as forming part of their courses. Therefore, it would not be really asking the universities to put on a course for an extremely small number of people. It would form part of the course which would normally be taken for the B.A. or the commerce degree. So much for the actual suggestions in regard to the working of the Department.
I should say this before I depart from that matter. As I said in the beginning, Deputy de Valera quite properly pointed out that there was no Department which could be an easier target for uninformed and perverse criticism. I do not want to accuse Deputy de Valera of having indulged in such perverse or uninformed criticism, but it did strike me that he was rather slighting on a couple of occasions when he suggested that, from 1948 onwards, I had opened a large number of posts which were not necessary. In point of fact and to get the matter right, the only mission for the opening of which I was responsible was our mission to Germany. I do not think anybody will suggest that we should not be represented in Germany. However, that is not of very much importance.
The Minister devoted quite a substantial portion of his statement to the question of different international organisations and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as other members of the House, dealt with the work of different international organisations. I agree generally with Deputy de Valera when he says that we are likely to get a wider measure of support in a very large international organisation such as U.N.O. than in a small international organisation such as the Council of Europe or O.E.E.C., because there are bound to be, in a larger bloc of nations of that kind, a great many more smaller nations and a great many more nations that may share our viewpoint.
Personally, I have very little faith in political international organisations which are purely inter-governmental. Inter-governmental international organisations are inevitably made the subject of power politics. It is inevitable that, in an organisation such as U.N.O., power politics play an extremely important rôle. I think it is much harder to secure an objective approach to world problems in an inter-governmental organisation. First of all, inter-governmental organisations which participate in the discussions have little or no freedom of action. They are tied by definite instructions which they receive and have little or no discretion in the matter. They cannot state their policy or their attitude, or very often express a view without getting firm instructions from their Foreign Offices. This limits, on the political plane, the usefulness of inter-governmental organisations. While I agree in very general terms with the proposition put forward by Deputy de Valera, that we are likely to have a greater measure of support on certain issues in U.N.O. than in an area of more limited scope, such as the Council of Europe, I do not feel we will benefit as much from U.N.O. as we will from more limited international organisations, such as the Council of Europe or O.E.E.C., on the economic plane.
I am inclined to expect that we will benefit more from the Council of Europe and O.E.E.C. than we will from U.N.O. The Council of Europe, as the House knows, is partly inter-governmental and partly inter-parliamentary. It is the first attempt at a European Parliament and gradually the assembly has been widening its functions and has become more resolute in the exercise of its powers. I believe it will ultimately play a very big rôle in Europe. It does not suffer, or it suffers to a lesser extent, from the defects of bigger inter-governmental organisations. I do not want to suggest by that that I think we can obtain, on big political issues, the support of the Council of Europe, but I feel that from the point of view of gaining some results, some value on the technical or economic plane, we are more likely to benefit from our participation in the Council of Europe and O.E.E.C. than we are from our participation in U.N.O. I do not want this to be interpreted as a criticism of our membership of U.N.O. I think, as the Minister pointed out, we could not remain in isolation from the rest of the world and that it is part of our obligation, one of the obligations of freedom, that we should actively participate in the work of international organisations such as U.N.O.
From the point of view of world development, it is much better that there should be organisations such as U.N.O. at which the problems and difficulties that confront the world can be discussed—even if U.N.O. is often used merely as a sounding board for propaganda by the different nations I think it is better that there should be discussion and that people should meet and discuss matters around the conference table than resort to war in the first instance.
In regard to our attitude in U.N.O., broadly speaking, I agree with the principles which have been put forward, as to what our attitude should be. What matters, however, is not so much the actual principles that are put forward, the actual basis of our policy, as the emphasis to be given to that policy. The emphasis I would prefer to give is that we should be absolutely independent in our approach to problems which come to U.N.O., that under no circumstances should we allow ourselves to become tied to any one bloc, that we should exercise our own independent judgment in regard to every question that comes before U.N.O.
I should like to express my reasons for that viewpoint. There are very few contributions which we can make on the material plane to international developments. We are not a military power, thank God; we are not sufficiently wealthy to be able to give any assistance; and we do not shine in the field of technical or scientific advances. Therefore, in fact, there are practically no contributions we can make on a material plane. In any event, even if we were in a position to make such contributions, it strikes me that the attitude of some of the major nations in U.N.O. is completely unrealistic and divorced from the realities of the situation. It is ludicrous that we should allow the future of humanity and of our civilisation to be entirely dependent upon the accidents of military strategy or of scientific progress.
To a large extent, that has been the attitude of the major powers in the course of the past ten years, since the war. One has had fears, over and over again, that the future peace of the world depends upon, not any moral reasons, not on any ethical basis, but upon whether or not some country had a cleverer scientist than another, who could invent a bigger and better weapon of destruction. International diplomacy in the past ten years has been largely based upon that concept, the concept that one side might not have a hydrogen bomb or some new weapon of destruction and we have had that continual race between two sets of experts and scientists.
That approach to international affairs seems to me to be completely nonsensical and also to be divorced from the real basis of the conflict which exists in the world to-day. In my view the battlefield of the present world conflict lies in the conscience and in the mind of humanity and the battle can only be won or lost there. The concentration on the materialistic approach or the military approach to world problems leads to the exclusion, to a certain extent, of the moral considerations involved. It seems to me that the principles of democratic government, of international morality and of human dignity should not be dependent upon the accidents of scientific discovery; that what is essential in the world of to-day is to secure not merely the acceptance but also the practice of the principles of democratic government, of international morality and of human dignity. It is only by ensuring the acceptance in practice of those principles upon which civilisation is founded that we can win the battle in the human mind and conscience.
It is not by inventing some weapon; it is not by concluding some strategic agreement; it is by the practice as well as the acceptance of the principles which we claim to be our guiding principles that this battle can be won. I think that we should be perfectly adamant in our attitude. I think whenever any issue arises involving any question of principle which is fundamental to Christianity, to democratic government or to justice, we should be unswerving in our attitude, no matter whom it hurts. If we adopt that attitude, either gradually or over a period of time, we may carve out a niche for ourselves in international affairs where we will at least command the respect not only of those with whom we have to side from time to time but also of those whom we may have to oppose from time to time.
Let me say that in my view Communism's best ally in the course of the last couple of years has been Great Britain. I think that Great Britain has done more to help Communism in Europe than Russia herself. I think that Britain's conduct in regard to Cyprus has done more to advance Communism in South-east Europe than any action of a Communist Government and has considerably weakened the Western Union bloc. We have a situation existing in Western Europe where we have a military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with three of its members virtually at war, largely because of Britain's refusal to accept the fundamental principle upon which democratic government is built, namely, the right of the people of a nation to determine their own affairs in peace by democratic means.
I think we should not be afraid to say these things even if it hurts Great Britain. I quite agree we should not go wrong in regard to our own issues, in raising Partition at inappropriate times or on inappropriate occasions, but I think we should be failing in our duty to ourselves if we were to remain silent in regard to the Partition of this country at a time when we should be vocal and should not be ashamed to be vocal. I do not think we should lean back too far in an attempt to appear reasonable. I say these things, not merely because they are of importance to ourselves, but because I think that the western world generally must be brought to a realisation that the present conflict cannot be won unless we are prepared to practise the principles which we claim to uphold. Unless we can do that we shall ultimately lose the conflict in the human mind.
I have mentioned the position in regard to Cyprus. I think it seems likely, from present developments, and from what I hear, that Greece may ultimately be forced away from the Western Alliance by Britain's attitude. The only thing which is holding Greece to the Western Alliance at the moment is that she has received a certain degree of support from the United States. I merely took these instances in regard to our attitude in U.N.O. to give emphasis to what I think should be our major concern—to keep an absolutely independent attitude there and to decide issues that arise there independently and with courage, irrespective of whose corns may be trodden on.
