The first thing I must do is to register a protest against the manner in which the Minister introduced his Estimate here this afternoon and the contents of his remarks. The Minister's speech was wholly in Irish. The Minister is entitled to his view that the Irish language should be used as much as possible in this House, but I feel that the occasion of the Vote on the Department of External Affairs is not an occasion on which the Minister should speak entirely through Irish. Apart from the number of Deputies who do not know Irish, there is another very important consideration; that is, there are many people outside this country who are interested in the foreign policy of the country and who read our debates.
There are many people not concerned with debates in this House on other topics, but they are concerned with matters of external policy which are discussed here. These are matters which concern other people and in which other people have an interest. On at least one occasion, to my knowledge, the debates in this House were reported by a foreign organisation in extenso and were circulated throughout Europe to the members of that organisation. It appears to me, therefore, that the Minister does a disservice to the country in addressing his remarks entirely in the Irish language.
Secondly, it appears to me to be unnecessary for the Minister to come into this House at all in view of the manner in which he introduced his Estimate; if the rules of procedure so permitted, the Estimate could have been introduced by an accountant from his Department. The remarks the Minister made were very short and contained nothing but a statement of expenditure for the coming year. There was no indication of foreign policy. There was no indication of the views of the Government on our position in the United Nations and all the many matters that are at present stirring in Europe in relation to our Partition problem. We must be unique, I think, in the democratic assemblies of this world in having a debate on External Affairs in which the Minister introduces his Estimate without making any reference at all to foreign policy. I am aware that the Estimates which the Minister is introducing were prepared by his predecessor. So were the Estimates for Industry and Commerce, but the Minister's colleague yesterday was able to give a policy statement on a number of important matters.
I sincerely hope that this will not be a precedent for future years. I should like to remind Deputies of what occurred last year, when the Minister's predecessor made a very long and very clear statement of policy with regard to our position in the United Nations, and with regard to our relations with other countries with which we are collaborating in the Council of Europe. I feel it is wrong that the Minister at this very crucial time should ignore these trends, should ignore the position in which we find ourselves and should merely treat the House, the country and people outside to a mere accounting statement of the affairs of his Department. I trust that the Minister, when replying, will give us some indication of the policy of the Government with regard to the many matters over which he now has control.
Last year, in the debate on the Estimate for External Affairs, the Minister's predecessor made very clear the principles which he believed should actuate our stand, our statements and our actions in the U.N.O. I should like the Minister to comment on these matters in his reply and I would suggest to him that when he goes to the United Nations in the autumn and when he instructs his officials as to the line that they should take up on the various matters that arise, certain things should be made very clear.
Although this country is militarily neutral, it should be made quite clear that we are not uncommitted in the war of ideas. It should be made quite clear that in the struggle between Communism and the Western Democracies we are not, and cannot be, neutral. We must maintain our freedom to criticise. We must maintain a position of freedom to criticise people whose actions we generally may support. I think our freedom in that respect was very well utilised by Deputy Cosgrave at the United Nations Assembly last year, when he joined with other nations in condemning the action of the British and French Governments in the Suez adventure.
Whilst maintaining that right, however, we must make it perfectly clear that our cultural ties, our economic, political and, indeed, our spiritual interests are on the side of the Western Democracies. In this regard we cannot afford to equivocate and we cannot afford to be pusillanimous. By our voice in the United Nations Assembly and by our votes there and in its many committees we should do what we can to assist the West in its struggle against totalitarian Communism.
It is, I think, a mistake to underestimate our importance in the United Nations as well as a mistake to overestimate it. In many regards our position is unique. We are a European power with strong cultural and historical ties with the mainland of Europe but we are unique also in that we are probably the only European power that was never a colonising power and we, because of our struggle for freedom, because of the stand that we took for so many centuries and since we have obtained our freedom, have got the sympathy and the understanding of great nations like India and also, I believe, can get the sympathy and understanding of the nascent new nationalities growing up in Africa, the Middle East and the Far East.
In addition, there is the fact, because the predominant religion of our people is the Catholic religion, that we have natural ties with countries like Spain and also some of the South American countries. Lastly, and probably the strongest tie that we have, is the fact that over the years our emigrants have gone to Canada, Australia and the United States of America and by virtue of that fact our influence in these countries is far from being insignificant. All these factors, I believe, combine to give Ireland a unique position in the Assembly of the U.N.O. It is a position in which, if we make judicious use of it, we can have a considerable influence on the affairs of that Assembly.
It has so happened, developments of such a nature have taken place over the last 12 months or so, that we now have an opportunity to exercise our influence there much greater than we had, perhaps, two years ago. In the last 12 months the most significant developments in the U.N.O. have been the growing influence of the Assembly over the Security Council and the fact that the Assembly's voice has now got such a great influence in the deliberations of that organisation when, a few years ago, the organisation was dominated almost completely by the Security Council. Secondly, there has been the fact that a number of countries less committed than others have been able to get a dominant position in the various debates that have arisen in the Assembly. I refer particularly to Canada and Sweden. It seems to me that these developments could assist Ireland very considerably in playing a very important rôle in the U.N.O., a rôle completely out of proportion to its size as a small island in the Atlantic Ocean.
I am of the view that it is the duty of whatever Minister and Government are in office to see that proper opportunity is taken to raise the issue of Partition at the United Nations Assembly. It is right that we should, if favourable opportunity arises, endeavour to get assistance from that organisation in righting our great national wrong, but I should like to say that we must act warily, skilfully and diplomatically. We must strengthen the friendships that we have already in that organisation and endeavour to forge new ones. From my very limited experience at international meetings, I have come to this very firm conclusion, that if a country wishes to get assistance for its own national wrongs it must first of all gain the sympathy of the international organisation and show itself a good and useful member of it.
A person with a constant grudge gets written off as a crank. Similarly, a nation with a constant grudge gets written off in international organisations. I have seen in the Council of Europe the Greek case over Cyprus, which was an unanswerable case before any assembly, being pushed into oblivion because the situation was not handled with, perhaps, the skill that it required, because it was pressed at the wrong times, because the ground was not properly prepared for it. The result was that in the Council of Europe the Greek case over Cyprus was largely ignored. I feel that there is a danger that the same thing might happen Ireland with regard to our own particular wrong and our particular problem.
I should like to say in this context that the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Cosgrave, has shown the way in which we can with dignity and with strength bring our wrong to the notice of the U.N.O. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the speech which he made to the United Nations Assembly last year.
Before passing from this topic, I think praise, too, should be given to our permanent representative and ambassador in the U.N.O., and to the officials from the Department who have assisted him there. It is not an easy task for a new delegation to attend a body such as the U.N.O. and reports from many sources indicate they have already gained great prestige for this country in the few short months we have been represented there.
I should like to turn now to the affairs of the Council of Europe and the recent developments in Western Europe. I do not wish to refer to-day, at this time at any rate, to the setting up of the European Economic Community and to the proposed establishment of the Free Trade Area. We are to have a debate on these matters later to-day and we have not enough information yet to come to any definite conclusion on them. There are other developments in Europe to which I would like to direct the Minister's attention and on which I would like his views when he replies.
As Deputies are aware, there has been a strong move in recent months to try and streamline the many parliamentary institutions of an international character which now exist in Europe. There are the Assembly of the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the Assembly of the Coal and Steel Community, the Assembly of N.A.T.O. and there is to be the Assembly of the European Economic Community. Proposals have been put forward by the British Government under the title "The Grand Design" which are one set of proposals for endeavouring to get rid of the prolificacy of these international organisations.
I sincerely hope that the Minister, when he is discussing these matters at the meetings of the Council of Ministers, and when his deputy is doing so at deputy level, that he will oppose the British Grand Design. No matter how well-meaning those proposals may be, I feel they will only serve to weaken Europe eventually. By bringing in the assemblies under the aegis of N.A.T.O., and by bringing in Canadian and Australian representatives as these proposals envisage, I feel the proposals of the British Government may indeed weaken the drive instead of strengthening the force for European unity.
It must be made clear that it is in the interests of this country that Europe becomes more united and stronger. I think the Minister at meetings of the Council of Ministers, and his deputy, should bear that in mind and we should not support any proposals which will weaken that drive which is such a potent force in Europe to-day.
At the present moment discussions are taking place between O.E.E.C. and the Council of Europe with regard to, if not an amalgamation, at least closer co-operation between the two organisations. I should like to hear the Minister's views on this movement. I should like him to support the movement for closer co-operation between O.E.E.C. and the Council of Europe. It has, indeed, been a remarkable development in recent months that O.E.E.C. have discontinued their opposition to any closer collaboration between their organisation and the Council of Europe. I hope the Minister will endeavour by his voice to assist that movement and, if possible, to bring about an amalgamation between the two organisations.
The Minister made no reference in his opening remarks to Partition. It is agreed, I think, by every Deputy in this House, that force is not a solution to ending Partition. From that, certain logical conclusions must fellow. If we decide that we cannot and we should not end Partition by means of armed force, there is only one other method of doing so and that is by breaking down the barriers of suspicion and prejudice which divide us from a minority of our fellow-Irishmen in the Six North-Eastern Counties. I do not think Partition can be ended by rubbing away a white line on a country road; it can only be achieved by removing, or reducing, the intangible and impalpable factors which go together to divide us from the Protestant minority in the North.
I think the bitternesses of the past, the prejudices which have become so ingrained, can be reduced in time if the proper policies are followed. We must offer to the young men who are being misled an alternative to the method of force. We must point out that this division in our country can be overcome in time. I think the methods by which it can be overcome are the methods of co-operation. We have had co-operation between the Government of the Six North-Eastern Counties and the Government of the Republic in the past, co-operation which has worked in the field of fisheries, electrical development and radio development. I think that could be continued.
There are many Departments of State, for example, the Department of Local Government and the Department of Justice, who could to a certain extent work in co-operation on various matters with similar Government Departments in the Six Counties. In case my remarks are being misunderstood, may I say in parenthesis, when I mention co-operation between the Department of Justice, I do not by any means intend to convey that there should be extradition between the two parts of the country. What I do mean to convey is that there are certain aspects of the administration of justice which form a useful field for co-operation.
I have mentioned these matters before in the House. They include the serving of writs outside the jurisdiction and the question of the issue of judgments that have been obtained in the two parts of the country. These matters could be subject to a convention between the two Governments, that we treat each other within the jurisdiction of each other's courts so that it would be unnecessary to serve a writ outside the jurisdiction in Northern Ireland and vice versa here. Similarly, it would be possible to execute judgments here obtained in Northern Ireland and vice versa.
It does seem there is a wide field for co-operation in matters of trade. I do not see any reason why we could not obtain here a type of common market which is being put up on a much wider field on the European mainland at the present time. It may also be possible to envisage co-operation with regard to civil defence.
The question of the establishment of radar stations, warning posts, is something which affects Belfast as much as Dublin and this would appear to be a field for co-operation between the two Governments. On different levels also, on the artistic, the literary, the sporting, these barriers to which I have referred could, over a period, be weakened by a proper policy of co-operation. We can do that as we have done it in the past without weakening in the slightest our legal rights and claim to jurisdiction over the Six North-Eastern Counties. There would be no weakening of our position by admitting that they were an ad hoc Government which we did not propose to recognise juridically, but the existence of which for practical matters we would be prepared to accept. There is nothing inconsistent about following a good neighbourly policy and at the same time endeavouring elsewhere, and as far as we can, to bring to the notice of the world the wrong from which this country is suffering.
There is one matter of administration of the Minister's Department to which I wish to refer, the recruitment of new officers for the Department. At the present time new entrants to the Department of External Affairs are not given an interview until they have passed an examination in Irish which is of an extremely high standard. It is advisable that our diplomats should know Irish, but it is a foolish thing indeed to keep good people out of the Department of External Affairs because they are not able to pass an extremely stiff examination in Irish. I know of people who, I am convinced, would have served the Government well but because they failed to pass the examination in Irish they were not even considered at the interview board.
I would suggest that that procedure should be reversed. You want good people, the best people you can get, in that Department. These people will eventually be representing our country abroad and we should endeavour to get them by seeing that they have proper qualifications, by having a proper interview board. Let them attend that board and let their qualifications be sifted as future diplomats. If they are found successful at that stage then let them attend and do an examination in Irish, say, after a period of 12 months' probation in the Department. If they are unable to pass it and if they are unqualified for the service they could then be dismissed. It seems to me wrong that we should keep out of the Department of External Affairs people who would serve it well, when we would achieve both ends, having our diplomats speak Irish and know Irish and having the best people in the Department. The present procedure is the reverse and I sincerely hope the Minister will consider this proposition.
