It seems to me there has been a significant change and shift in the foreign policy of the Government over the past 12 months and since we last debated the Estimate for this Department. This shift is shown in the declarations of the Taoiseach in December of last year, and repeated later, to the effect that in the ideological conflicts which divide the world today, we are not an uncommitted State. It is to be seen, secondly, in the fact that this country is apparently not going to attend a meeting of uncommitted States which will be held in Yugoslavia next September.
We have long been pressing the Government for a declaration of its principles in relation to foreign policy. Since the Government came into office, we have had many debates on External Affairs and many debates by way of motion tabled in this House from time to time on the foreign policy of the Government. In all these debates, we suggested that it was desirable the Government should make clear to this House, to the country in general, and to the world, where this country stood in relation to the great conflicts in which practically all nations are involved.
Up to the debate last year, the most we could get from the Government was a statement by the Minister that he would prefer to let his actions speak for themselves. Whether it was pressure from this side of the House, pressure from elsewhere, or for whatever reason, we are glad that the Government, even though tardily, subscribe now to the declaration made by the Taoiseach last December when, for the first time since this Government took office, he declared in unequivocal terms that this country was not neutral in the ideological struggle.
Speaking on 1st December at a meeting of the Solicitors' Apprentices' Debating Society, the Taoiseach is reported as stating:
We do not profess to be indifferent to the outcome of the East-West conflict, nor present ourselves as neutral in the ideological issues which now divide the world.
A few weeks later in a message to Cologne Radio, he stated.
While we are not now in NATO, we are not to be regarded as neutral in the ideological conflict which divides the world. We are unequivocally on the side of those nations which support the democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution.
These are views which have been expressed from this side of the House since this Dáil was elected and expressed by spokesmen of this Party since we first entered the United Nations. We welcome the statement of the Taoiseach. It is now clear that we are not an uncommitted State. I apprehend, however, that there is a danger that the Minister may find himself suffering from a form of schizophrenia if he endeavours to act, out of principle, as if we are not an uncommitted State and, in principle, as if we are a neutralist State. Certainly, from the Minister's speech so far we have been given little to guide us to the view that the Minister is in complete agreement with the views of the Taoiseach.
We should impress on this Government that it is not possible to say that we are not an uncommitted State, that we are committed in the ideological conflict, and at the same time to take up a pose in the United Nations as if we were one of the so-called neutralist group.
This brings me to the second point, which I consider marks a significant shift in the Government's foreign policy, namely, the fact that we are not attending a meeting of neutralists which is to be held, according to newspaper reports, in September of this year. I put down a question some weeks ago to the Minister for External Affairs, and I was told by him that we had received no invitation to attend this meeting. Several other Deputies got a similar answer a few weeks ago. If that is so, this is a very significant fact. The meeting to be held in Yugoslavia, according to newspaper reports, is a meeting which is sponsored by President Tito of Yugoslavia, by President Sukarno of Indonesia and by Prime Minister Nehru of India. It is a meeting which, again according to newspaper reports, nations regarded as the uncommitted group of nations are to meet to discuss world problems. Nations from Africa, Asia and, it would appear also, South America, are to attend this meeting. Ireland was not asked to attend.
I have seen it said in reputable places in this country that it might be possible for this country to become the leader of a third force in the United Nations, that we might take the lead in the group of uncommitted States. The fact that we were not asked to this meeting, if that is the fact, demonstrates what nonsense this is. If, in fact, the group of so-called uncommitted nations are holding an important meeting in Bled, or wherever it is, in Yugoslavia, and did not see fit to ask Ireland to attend, it seems to us that we are rather misunderstanding the rôle that these other countries think we play in the United Nations. That is, of course, if we were not asked to attend. So we are told, and it is officially indicated that no invitation has been sent to us.
Whilst that, I am sure, is the truth, I wonder is it the whole truth? I wonder did President Sukarno fly from Vienna to Dublin merely to look at the Irish scenery and to shake hands with the leaders of our Government and State? I myself doubt it. I suspect—I may be wrong and the Minister can deny it if I am wrong—that in fact what happened was that we were asked if we would like an invitation to attend the meeting of uncommitted States and that we turned it down. This, of course, is pure hypothesis on my part and the only basis on which I can make the suggestion is, first of all, the well-known fact of diplomatic usage, that invitations to meetings such as this are not sent out unless it is known beforehand that they are going to be accepted and, secondly, the strange fact that President Sukarno, who is one of the promoters of this conference and one of the persons most interested in seeing that it is a success, saw fit to come and visit us for a few hours, went a considerable distance out of his way to Moscow. I suspect that what happened was that we were asked if we would like an invitation and that it was turned down. I would be glad if the Minister would deal with that point in his reply.
If that is the situation, I welcome the decision of the Government. I think the Government are quite correct not to request an invitation or to suggest to the promoters of this meeting that they would not like an invitation to it. That is a perfectly correct attitude to take up and I say so after giving considerable consideration to whatever information is available to an ordinary member of the public through the Press on the proposed meeting.
We all know the tremendous stature and the great gifts of Prime Minister Nehru and we know the work he has been doing in international affairs and that it is, by and large, greatly admired in this country. We also know where President Tito stands. President Tito is a confirmed Communist in somewhat dogmatic isolation in the Communist bloc. I should like to remind Deputies, though, of the position where it would appear President Sukarno stands as his position in the cold war may not be so well known.
In the issue of 11th June, 1961, the Observer correspondent refers to Dr. Sukarno's visit to Moscow and states:
President Brezhnev of Russia today gave a pugnaciously anti-imperalist speech at a rally in honour of the Indonesian President, Dr. Sukarno.
The Indonesian leader .... said the Russians were "beloved and trustworthy friends" whereas the imperialists "wish Indonesia to perish."
It is further stated:
The whole Presidium, including Mr. Khrushchev, attended the meeting, and President Brezhnev promised Indonesia full support for "the liberation" of West Irian (Dutch New Guinea).
It is perfectly clear from these and other statements where Dr. Sukarno stands in the ideological struggle in the world. His inclinations are much more to the Communist group of States. He has trade and military agreements with them and regards them as "beloved and trustworthy friends". I wonder do we? I think we do not. One of the few things one can be safe in saying in a form of generalisation is that the Irish people do not regard the Communists as beloved and trustworthy friends.
It is Dr. Sukarno and President Tito who, it would appear, are the principal persons organising this meeting. From the reports which are available, it would appear, in fact, that the meeting is not the type of meeting which it is in Ireland's best interests to attend or that we could significantly assist in world affairs by attending. If my suggestion is correct and if, in fact, the Government quietly suggested that they would prefer not to be invited to this meeting, that is a very correct decision to have taken.
On the general level of world affairs and our rôle in the United Nations, there is one matter in which I feel the Opposition are fully justified in criticising the Government, that is, their failure to state unequivocally where they stand on the China issue. Let this be clear; one of the major issues that will arise in the autumn session of the Assembly of the United Nations is the China issue and the question of whether Peking is to take the China seat in the UN Assembly and Security Council. We are entitled to know what way the Government intend to vote on that vital issue.
The Government, let it be said, have refused to state what they are going to do. They have taken refuge in every form of verbal deceit in order to avoid stating what their attitude is. Why are the Government afraid to tell the country whether they are going to vote in September, or whenever the debate may be, for the admission of Red China to the United Nations? That is a matter on which by now, after four years, the Government could have made up their mind. It is a matter on which the relevant facts are now well known. Very little, it can be anticipated, is going to happen between now and September to alter whatever decision the Government may have taken. It seems to me to be extraordinary that the Government have not made up their mind on this issue. If they have made up their mind on it, it is wrong for them not to tell the country what that decision is.
I asked the Minister for External Affairs, as recently as Tuesday, 27th June last, what the Government's attitude was and if he would make a statement. The reply I got was that:
... the attitude of the Irish delegation would be determined by a number of considerations which I have often outlined and most recently in reply to a similar Question by the Deputy on 21st March.
May I refer the House—I realise I am taking up some time in doing so but I feel it is desirable—to what the reply on 21st March was? It was in reply to a similar Question.
First, the Government stated why they had voted in favour in December. Then, the Taoiseach, who was answering for the Minister, went on to say, referring to an earlier statement of his:
I also explained on the same occasion that, whereas there are in the United Nations many countries whose form of Government we would not like to see repeated here, countries of whose policies we strongly disapprove and the philosophy of whose rulers is abhorrent to our people, we feel nevertheless that, if the United Nations is to become what we would like it to be, namely, an effective shield for world peace, then clearly it must comprise countries of that character, and that we would like to see a real United Nations whose members are pledged to peace and who are willing to accept the verdict of the other member countries in relation to any acts of theirs which might imperil peace.
May I pause there for a moment?
The Taoiseach has not given us any indication whether in his view China —Red China, Communist China, the Peking régime or whatever you like to call it—meets with this requirement or stands up to this very proper criterion. It is very little value to us for the Taoiseach to state that he would like to see the United Nations comprised of countries pledged to peace and who are willing to accept the verdict of other member countries, if in fact the Taoiseach and the Minister do not tell us, whether in their view, Red China will meet that requirement. I do not think it does. I think anything we can learn from the actions, statements, and policies of the leaders of the Peking regime indicate quite clearly that they would not fulfil the obligations of the United Nations' Charter as we believe they should be fulfilled.
Having said that, the Taoiseach went on then with these Delphic words:
The matter covered by the Deputy's question is not on the agenda for the resumed Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which opened on 7th March, and I do not think therefore that a statement on the subject is called for at the present time.
That is nothing but verbal parrying. It will be on the agenda. It may very well be on the agenda of the United Nations in the September Session, and it is something on which we are entitled to a view.
The Taoiseach then went on to say:
However, I may say that, if the question of seating Communist China in the United Nations comes before the Assembly, the Government, in deciding how to vote on this question, would have regard to the various considerations which arise, including such factors as the possibility of securing from that Government assurances to abide by the Charter and to accept an obligation to restore to the people of China fundamental human rights.
Where does that get us? How is the country to interpret that? How are we to know what way the Government intend to vote? All they say is they will take into consideration the various factors that may arise. I do not think I am exaggerating the position when I say that the Government kept from the country what their policy is. They should make known, so that it can be debated here, what their attitude is on what is a vital matter which will arise within the next few months, a matter in which Ireland's prestige, and indeed Ireland's whole position in international affairs, may be involved.
In the debate which has taken place annually on the Department of External Affairs it has been common for speakers from this side of the House to refer to developments in Europe, particularly to developments in the Council of Europe and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, as it then was. It is something which we on this side of the House had hoped would give the House an opportunity of debating the great issues which were taking place on our doorstep. It was a hope which was never realised because, if Deputies look back over the Dáil Debates for the last few years, they will find a very meagre contribution from the Government benches and from the Minister himself on affairs in Europe and on the attitude of this Government to European affairs in general.
We are now beginning to reap the harvest of that neglect. One of the principal criticisms of the Government's foreign policy which I think we are justified in making has been their neglect of European affairs. Since this Government took office, since the Minister took up his present position as Minister for External Affairs, he has never once spoken in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe and no Minister of the Irish Government has spoken in the Assembly other than an ordinary Minister who happened to be a delegate to the Consultative Assembly and who spoke in his capacity as a delegate.
This Government have ignored the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am not making this criticism as a result of any, perhaps, narrow parochial pride in the work of the Consultative Assembly, as a result of, perhaps, certain allegiances or ties one builds up over a number of years. I am making this criticism —I think with full justification—because, in fact, the failure of the Government to take any active part in the work of the Council of Europe is something which has been the subject of considerable comment, to my knowledge, in the Council of Europe.
This Government have ignored the work going on in Strasbourg. While indeed the Minister has attended the very rare meetings of the Committee of Ministers and while no doubt his very able and most lamented deputy, who has since died, attended regularly as the Minister's deputy, the fact remains that the public image of Ireland in Europe is that of a pale ectoplasm of Great Britain. For the last four years, in all the negotiations dealing with the E.E.C. and the establishment of a Free Trade Area, in all the vital things that have been happening on our door-step and that we have now come face to face with, we have all the time been merely a thin echo of the voice of our powerful next-door neighbour. We were told by the Taoiseach last week that we belong to Europe. Now we are told that we must go enthusiastically into Europe. Now we are told that, in fact, we have always regarded the aims, principles and clauses of the European Economic Community as having our full support, but, unfortunately, we have our trade pattern with Great Britain and we could not adhere to the Community.
Secrets are kept from this House and from Europe. It will come as a surprise to many that in their hearts the Government, in fact, have been good Europeans all these years. In fact, their strong desire and admiration have been such as to render them mute for so long. We are, I think, reaping the effects of this neglect now. We have ignored affairs in Europe; we have played no role of any significance. I am perfectly satisfied that we have a role there to play that we could have had influence there and could have been a country of importance there. We could have enhanced our prestige and influence, if we had played our cards properly.
What has been happening in Europe since the war is, I think, most important. One of the most important facts of the post-war world is the movement towards closer European unity which has been going on since 1945. It is something which, I think, future historians will regard as one of the most significant developments in the post-war years. It is a development which we should welcome; it is a development which we should, in so far as we can, aid; and it is a development from which we could gain benefit and strength.
Instead of that, we had occasionally lip service paid to the principles of the Council of Europe and the O.E.E.C., but where is there in this country, such as occurred in other countries, the tremendous enthusiasm, the tremendous drive and the tremendous desire to educate public opinion which has been going on among the responsible people on the Continent, ever since the idea of building up a unified Europe gained strength in the immediate post-war years?
In fact, our people are now to be faced with a considerable decision in respect of the European Economic Community—a decision for which they are not prepared because of the failure of the Government to educate and in-form the people on what is before them.
One of the extraordinary aspects of the Taoiseach's speech last week, when he intervened in the debate, was the way he glossed over the institutional factors and the political significance of the Rome Treaty. Nowhere will you find in his speech the statement which is, in fact, the truth, that if we join the Common Market, there will have to be some surrender of sovereignty on our part. I think that surrender of sovereignty is necessary. If it is economically possible, it should be done, but the people in other countries, particularly France, and also to some lesser extent, Italy and Germany, have been prepared for some years for such a surrender of sovereignty as is involved in supra-national institutions which are being created by the Rome Treaty.
Instead, this country has been largely uninformed on what is involved and we are not, I think, prepared for the matters which will face us in the very near future. Whilst the European Economic Community is an economic arrangement, it is primarily of political inspiration. Whilst I welcome the decision and the statement of the Government that if we join the European Economic Community, we must join it with enthusiasm and wholeheartedly, such conversion is of very recent origin. It has only been brought about because of the grim economic decisions and alternatives with which we are faced.
As recently as 14th June last, I asked the Taoiseach to state whether, should it be economically possible to join the European Economic Community, he is of the opinion that it would be politically desirable for this country to do so. I received the following tepid, lukewarm reply:
The factors which arise in connection with possible membership on our part of the European Economic Community are primarily of an economic nature. There are, as well, certain political implications which, in my opinion, are not such as to make it undesirable for this country to join the community on the hypothesis mentioned by the Deputy.
That is a series of negative statements which indicated no great enthusiasm for the political considerations involved in our joining the European Economic Community.
I should like to say on this matter that if, in fact, the economic considerations, which, of course, arise in this decision, and economic circumstances so permit, I would welcome Ireland joining the European Economic Community. Politically, this Community is one of the most important facts of the post-war world. It is something to which we have a contribution to make and from which we can gain.
In the course of the debate last week, some Deputies expressed certain hesitations and certain doubts concerning the military consequences of the establishment of the European Economic Community. The fact, of course, is that NATO is there and it serves the military needs along with the Western European Union of the Western States. This European Economic Community is an economic and political association which does not involve this country in any military commitments but it does involve us in political ones. I think it is those political considerations, as well as the economic ones, that we should have full knowledge of.
I cannot avoid repeating the criticisms made here and elsewhere about the manner in which the Government have handled this whole situation. It seems to me to be extraordinary that only last week we were told of committees being established to investigate the effects of Ireland joining the European Economic Community. The Rome Treaty was signed two and a half years ago. Three and a half years ago, it was known that it was very likely to be signed. Over a year ago, we knew that we were not going to be in the European Free Trade area and now at the eleventh hour, when through the decision of Great Britain, we, too, are now, it would appear, to join the European Economic Community, the Government decide that it would be desirable to set up these committees.
This matter was canvassed on this side of the House before. The circumstances of Ireland's joining have been adverted to before in this House. As recently as April of last year, the N.F.A. referred to the fact that it had asked the Government to establish a committee to investigate in detail Ireland's position in relation to European trade bloc developments and to formulate policy for action. This proposal, we are told in the Irish Times of 28th April, 1961, was turned down by the Government. Now, as a result of whatever discussions took place between President Kennedy, Mr. Macmillan and President de Gaulle, we are hurriedly deciding we are all good Europeans; we are all in favour of European unity and now, if Great Britain joins, we will do likewise.
I feel that one of the matters with which this country should concern itself, both in the European institutions of which it is a member and also in the United Nations, is the problem of the under-developed countries of the world. This is a fantastic problem. With the tremendous wealth there is in parts of the world, with the tremendous sums being spent on armaments, there is, at the same time, poverty to an extent which, to Irish people, accustomed as we are to poverty in our country, must seem absolutely appalling.
It seems to me that one of the ways in which a country such as ours can assist is in trying to expand the assistance given to the under-developed areas of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia. We are in the difficult position of being a comparatively poor country ourselves and the amount of wealth we have available to distribute is certainly of little significance. I feel that, in the realm of technical assistance, there is something which we could do, whatever it may be, on a fairly small level. Nonetheless, in the realm of technical assistance, in the realm of education, in the realm of administration, there is help that we could give and there is certainly support which we can give to those endeavouring to expand it.
I am aware that quite recently a decision was taken by the Government which was certainly a good one concerning teachers who may wish to go abroad for a year or two to one of the under-developed areas such as Nigeria, with which, I understand, the statement which was made was concerned. Such service abroad would be taken into consideration in their future emoluments. That is a decision that is to be welcomed. I wonder if it has, in fact, been put into practice?
I had the privilege and good fortune to represent the Council of Europe at a meeting in Lagos earlier this year which was very largely concerned with problems of technical assistance to Africa. The conference was made up of European states, but principally of African states. The great needs of the African states in this field were widely considered and supported. As a result of these discussions, a report was prepared by the Council of Europe and, on foot of that report, the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation, No. 279, dealing with technical assistance to Africa.
I should like to know if the Minister is prepared, in the Committee of Deputies, to support the Assembly's recommendation on this point. Briefly, what the Assembly unanimously suggested—and this suggestion arose only after the matter had been considerably discussed and the possibility of its implementation discovered—was that the Council of Europe should act as a sort of clearing-house for technical assistance, aid in the realm of youth organisations and education to African states.
There are undoubtedly possibilities of assistance which this country, small as it is, could give in the realm of technical assistance. There is the missionary enthusiasm which so very frequently and gloriously is canalised into religious communities but which can also be made use of in the secular field. I should think that, if properly presented to our people, we could help the states of Africa, particularly the English-speaking states like Nigeria and Ghana and the East African states, by doing a year's or two years' service in schools, hospitals and administration. If it were known that young people coming out from universities or starting their careers would not suffer any loss by so doing, I feel we would have people willing to take the opportunity and willing to give assistance to these people who so urgently need it. I should be glad to know if the Minister is prepared to accept this recommendation which I feel would be of value to this country.
I think that, in many ways, we are now facing a crossroads in our external relations. Take, for example, the uncommitted state of Indonesia. One of the problems it is currently engaged in trying to settle, apparently by military methods, is the problem of Dutch New Guinea, apparently with Russian assistance. As a member of the Council of Europe, as a member perhaps of the European Economic Community, we shall have close ties with Holland who, as everybody knows, is in very great disagreement with Indonesia. Where does Ireland stand in such a conflict of loyalties? Can we become good Europeans and remain an uncommitted neutralist State? I do not think we can.
I think the time has now come when it must be realised that our foreign policy can be guided by a few simple propositions. If it is realised that a victory for Communism in any part of the world involves this country in some loss then our actions in the field of international affairs will become clearer. If it is realised that a gain for Communism in Laos or in Saigon, for example, is not just a defeat of American interests but a defeat of Irish interests, if it is realised that a Russian victory over Berlin is not just a defeat, as was suggested here last week, for an old reactionary Chancellor of Western Germany but a defeat for the western world of which we are part, I think our difficulties in foreign affairs will be greatly overcome.
What I should like to see coming out now, after four years of this Government's activities in the field of foreign affairs is not only a realisation that we are not an uncommitted State, a realisation that we are not a neutralist State, but an acceptance of the fact that we must act accordingly in support of those nations whose interests are common to ours and who, in common with us, have an interest in seeing that the Communist aggression is halted and that our common ideals succeed in the world struggle.