I move:
That a sum not exceeding £1,085,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs and of certain services administered by that Office, including a grant-in-aid.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take the Estimates for External Affairs and International Co-operation together.
The Estimate for External Affairs at £1,085,000 represents a net increase of £67,000 over the Estimate for 1968-69, including supplementaries. The amount required for salaries and allowances is increased by £48,500; the provision for travelling and incidental expenses is up by £11,000. The other expenditure subheads show lesser variations and the receipts under Appropriations-in-Aid are expected to be £5,430 less than last year's.
The increase of £48,500 in the salary subhead, which is about six per cent of last year's provision, is due to normal departmental expansion and pay increases of staff, both home-based and locally recruited abroad. It has proved necessary to include an extra sum of £11,000 under subhead B—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—in order to meet the continuing increase in the cost of services provided for in this subhead. Charges for postage, telephone and telegraph services continue to rise with increasing commitments, as also does the incidence of foreign travel.
The amounts included for cultural relations with other countries and for information services show small increases. They are still relatively modest provisions and are at what I regard as the lowest level necessary to maintain any sort of reasonable programme for cultural activities and information services.
It was expected that the amount required for repatriation and maintenance of destitute Irish persons abroad would be £4,000 as against £6,750 last year. It now seems, however, that the level of advances in the current year may be as much as £7,000; but if that is the case there will be a corresponding increase in the repayment of these advances under subhead G—Appropriations-in-Aid. The reduction of £5,430 shown in subhead G is due largely to a reduction earlier anticipated in the repayment of repatriation and maintenance advances.
The Estimate for International Co-operation for 1969-70 is for £290,000 and is £29,000 more than last year's £22,000 of the additional amount required arises from increased contributions pledged to the United Nations Voluntary Agencies. Increases are also shown in our contributions towards the expenses of the Council of Europe, the OECD and the United Nations. These increases reflect the rise in the operational expenses of the organisations.
At the outset I should say that as I spoke on the North of Ireland situation in last week's debate I shall not deal with it in this speech. In the major areas of tension and conflict in the world, the record over the last year and a half, since the Estimates of this Department were last discussed in Dáil Éireann, has been sombre and discouraging. The United Nations Secretary-General in submitting his recent annual report to the organisation stated that it was clear to him that he could report very little progress in the world at large towards the goals of the United Nations Charter—to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations and achieve international co-operation. Moreover, the Secretary-General remarked that he had a strong feeling that time is running out.
In the period under review we have witnessed the violation of international law and human rights in the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia; in the Middle East the situation has steadily deteriorated with an ever-increasing frequency of raids and reprisals on both sides; in South East Asia, although peace talks have been in progress now for over a year, the war in Vietnam still seems interminably to drag on and there has been no progress on the basic issues which must be solved before real peace can begin to be rebuilt in the whole area. In the far-East the rulers of Communist China continue segregated from the rest of the international community. In Latin America there has been constant political tension and in the continent of Africa there are the running sores of colonial oppression and apartheid in South Africa and the disastrous conflict in Nigeria.
These problems are aggravated by the widening economic gap between the rich countries and the poor. And over all our heads the nuclear arms race still hangs as a continuous menace and a potential means of universal destruction. It is scarcely to be wondered at that throughout the world the young are rebelling against the principles and the methods of the preceding generation in the conduct of international affairs when they consider that, despite brilliant scientific discoveries and technological achievement, mankind has made little progress in implementing the universally acknowledged primary goal of achieving justice and peace among men. On most of the major issues I have mentioned, the policy of the Government is well known. In the community of nations, Ireland is a small country with correspondingly small resources and influence, but we can exercise a certain moral suasion for peace which has a useful though limited effect. Our international position is strengthened both by our own past history as a nation and by our firm commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter. We have demonstrated this commitment by the record of the Government's policies at the United Nations over the years and we have proved it in a practical way through our participation in United Nations peace-keeping in many parts of the world over the last decade.
I do not propose to enter into a detailed exposition of all the major areas of international political relations with which my Department have been concerned over the past year and a half; instead I will confine myself to a brief survey of the Government's position as regards the following: the European Economic Community, the Nigeria/Biafra problem, the question of disarmament and our role in United Nations peace-keeping.
The House will be aware that the question of enlargement of the European Communities by the admission of new countries, including Ireland, has again become a live issue. The talks I had last July with representatives of some of the member Governments and with the EEC Commission indicated that a decision to open negotiations with the applicant countries could be taken before long. I have received the same impression from the discussions I was able to have in New York with Ministers of the Six and the applicant countries, and from the reports of my Department's Missions in Europe. Every effort is accordingly being made here at home to ensure our readiness for negotiations should these become a reality in the fairly near future.
While the prospects for negotiations now seem brighter, I would, nevertheless, hesitate to predict how soon they are likely to commence. The Common Market is at present faced with a number of formidable internal problems on some of which at least progress will apparently have to be made before negotiations could start. If the member countries of the EEC should find themselves unable to reach agreement on some of these fundamental problems in the coming months, then there is room for doubt as to whether it will be possible to set an early date for negotiations with the applicants.
A foremost objective for us in the negotiations when they do commence will be to ensure that they lead to our accession simultaneously with the other applicants, particularly Britain. Earlier this year there was a suggestion that enlargement should take place by stages, with Great Britain admitted to membership in advance of the other applicants. I do not have to tell the House of the grave consequences this would have for us in view of our close trading links with Britain. It was largely my serious concern at this suggestion that prompted me to seek meetings last July with the Foreign Ministers of Belgium and the Netherlands, and the President of the EEC Commission and with the French Foreign Minister in New York last month. Fortunately, the idea of a Community of Seven now seems to have been abandoned but, nevertheless, I intend to have the situation carefully watched.
The hopes of the applicant countries are now fixed on the summit conference of the EEC member States, which is to take place in The Hague on 17th and 18th November. This meeting could well prove of historic significance for the future of Europe if it leads to the opening of negotiations on the four membership applications, thus giving a new impetus to Europe's aspirations and resuming the movement towards the goals set by those who framed the Treaty of Rome. Even if our hopes in the outcome of the summit conference are not fully realised, I am, nevertheless, convinced from the different discussions I have had that the great fund of goodwill and the self-interest of the member Governments must, sooner rather than later, surmount the obstacles to enlargement of the communities.
At the Hague Conference the heads of state and government of the six will no doubt be greatly assisted in their deliberations by the commission's updated opinion of the 1st October on the question of enlargement. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should call attention to some of the more important aspects of that document, copies of an unofficial translation of which have been placed in the Dáil Library. The document supplements an earlier opinion of 29th September, 1967. In its latest opinion the commission pays special attention to the development and strengthening of the community in the context of enlargement, as it believes that only a strong community can act as a proper vehicle for the reception of new members. The commission consequently urges rapid progress in the adoption of a number of measures to strengthen the community's institutions. It points to the necessity for the applicant countries to accept what has already been achieved in implementation of the Rome Treaty and to co-operate with the measures being taken for the future strengthening and development of the communities. The commission rejects the idea of enlargement by stages. It feels, however, that fully concurrent negotiations with all the applicants may not be possible but recognises the need for adequate co-ordination on questions which cannot be negotiated with individual countries in isolation. The accession of the four candidate countries would then take place simultaneously. The importance of co-ordination and consultation on problems of common interest is, indeed, a matter on which I laid particular stress in my talks with representatives of the member governments and the commission. Finally, the commission recommends that negotiations with the applicant countries should be opened as soon as possible. I should like to take this opportunity of publicly welcoming this valuable and constructive document of the commission.
With the improved prospects in relation to the EEC, it is vital at this stage that the country should not only continue but, indeed, intensify its preparations to meet the obligations of membership. The time available to us to carry through further desirable adaptations and improvements in efficiency over the whole economy may now be relatively short. The precise terms of our entry and the transitional arrangements we receive can only be determined in the course of negotiations. One thing however is clear, namely, that membership of the European communities will subject us to new disciplines extending over the entire range of our economic life and will also have implications in the social and political spheres. These we must be prepared fully to accept.
The Government remain convinced that membership of the EEC represents the best means for realisation of our full potential as a nation. On the agricultural side we undoubtedly stand to gain from our participation in the common agricultural policy even though that policy may have undergone certain modifications by the time of our accession. Industrially we can look forward to the much wider possibilities which will be opened up to us as a result of our ready access to a vastly increased market. The experience which Irish industrialists have had in adapting to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement has undoubtedly been a most valuable preparation for membership of the EEC. This experience also provides gratifying cause for confidence in the capacity of our industry to meet more broadly based competition in the future.
This House and the country will be kept as fully informed as possible on future developments in relation to the EEC and on the likely effects to be expected from membership. It is only right that this should be done given the far-reaching implications of membership for the nation. As the Taoiseach indicated last week, a more detailed or firm assessment of the implications of membership than that already given is scarcely possible at this stage when the member Governments are confronted with finding solutions to a number of major internal problems likely to affect the future evolution of the Common Market.
Finally, I should like to assure the House that the closest contact will continue to be maintained with the Governments of the Six and of the applicant countries through Ministerial and official visits and through our missions. It is, in fact, my intention to take the earliest opportunity for further talks with some of these Governments.
The conflict in Nigeria has been going on now for over two years. As Deputies are only too well aware, there has been vast suffering and loss of life with hundreds of thousands of people on both sides either killed in the hostilities or dying the slow death of hunger and disease. I do not wish to enter into the causes of the conflict: these were complex and there were certainly legitimate fears and grievances on both sides. Even before the war began, we strongly urged reconciliation between the two sides and an avoidance at all cost of recourse to arms. Here I would recall the words of His Holiness Pope Paul VI when in his "message to Africa" shortly after the Nigerian conflict began, he urged that the rulers of the African nations will "look for peace" and "be quick to dialogue and to negotiate rather than break off relations and resort to force". The war in Nigeria has not only led to human suffering on a vast scale but it has also already left a terrible legacy of tribal bitterness and recrimination, particularly in the areas which once formed the eastern region of Nigeria: this bitterness will not be easy to eradicate.
The Government's policy, as I have already stated in the Dáil, has been concentrated on doing whatever is in our power to do to promote a peaceful settlement between the parties to the conflict and, concurrently, and most urgently, while the search for peace continues, to increase the supply of relief to the civilian victims of the conflict. As I informed the Dáil last July, I made a complete review of the whole situation after I took office but my conclusions did not lead me to hope that at the time we could take an initiative which could have any real influence in helping to solve the major issues.
In my general debate speech at the United Nations on 26th September, I expressed the sincere hope that a just settlement of the Nigerian problem would be speedily reached with the assistance of the Organisation of African Unity. As Deputies are aware, the OAU is the regional organisation with the primary responsibility of providing good offices in disputes in Africa.
Moreover as an African body, it is ideally suited to offer mediation in situations where attempts by European Governments or groups of Governments meet with mistrust no matter how pure the motives, in view of Africa's well-founded suspicion of European colonialism, based on bitter experience.
In September, 1967, the Organisation of African Unity meeting in Kinshasa established a six-nation consultative committee on Nigeria, and this committee under the very active and positive leadership of Emperor Hailie Selassie of Ethiopia has been constantly working to achieve a settlement between the two sides. It hardly needs to be said that no matter how many offers of mediation are made or how hard the mediators work, it is ultimately the two sides that must agree on a settlement.
Delegations from both sides have under the auspices of the OAU put forward their respective views at Niamey, at Addis Ababa and at Algiers in 1968 and in Monrovia and most recently again in Addis Ababa in the present year. Also in this year His Holiness Pope Paul and the African Hierarchy endeavoured to bring the two sides together in Uganda. However, despite these meetings and the intense diplomatic activity that is constantly in progress, the basis for a negotiated settlement does not yet appear to have emerged.
In July last, our Ambassador to Nigeria on my instructions travelled to Addis Ababa, where he had discussions with both the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry and the Secretariat of the Organisation of African Unity. We have been, of course, also in close touch with both sides to the conflict, and recently at the United Nations General Assembly I have had discussions with many delegates including in particular the representatives of several of the African countries most involved. While we recognise the duty of the whole international community to promote peace in this terrible conflict, and particularly the duty of countries such as ourselves who for many years have had close bonds of friendship with the people on both sides, the policy of the Government is aimed primarily at supporting the efforts of the OAU and its member States to bring the parties to the conference table and to suggest ways in which negotiations may prove fruitful.
The Ethiopian Foreign Minister declared earlier this month that Emperor Hailie Selassie will continue his efforts, undaunted by the lack of progress so far until a solution is found to the conflict. Recently, since the meeting of the OAU at Addis Ababa last month, both General Gowon and General Ojukwu have been reported as indicating a willingness to enter into negotiations. I sincerely hope that such negotiations will take place, and that with the ground prepared carefully and quietly in advance, progress will be made.
As Deputies are aware, we have always urged direct contact between the two sides, if only on an informal basis and on limited topics: we feel that such contact, if made away from all publicity, could help to bring about a climate of trust between the two sides, if only in a very limited way to begin with. The absence of all trust between the two sides at present is, I think, the greatest obstacle to genuine negotiations.
In the last few days I have been glad to note that there has been new activity in the search for peace. On Sunday the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia, accompanied by the Secretary General of the OAU, delivered in Lagos to General Gowon a special message from Emperor Hailie Selassie, Chairman of the OAU six nation consultative committee on Nigeria, who is constantly in touch with both sides. Yesterday General Gowon had consultations with the President of the Congo, who is a member of the OAU committee. And today, he is having further consultations with the President of the Cameron Republic, who is Chairman of the OAU itself.
I should like to emphasise that the Government are convinced that the only solution likely to last is a solution that comes from negotiation, not from war. Any such solution that can be agreed on by the parties concerned will be welcomed by us, provided always that provision is made for adequate guarantees for the fundamental human rights of the peoples involved. Apart from this stipulation, we have no preconceptions of our own about the type of relationship which should ultimately be evolved to allow these people, for whom we have the greatest of good will and sympathy, once again to live in peace and mutual co-operation. Agreement, however, if it is to come should surely be postponed no further.
While this tragic war goes on, the Government will continue to urge respect by both parties for humanitarian behaviour in accordance with the internationally accepted standards of conduct of war, as set out in particular in the Geneva Conventions. As Deputies know, the Government have frequently deplored all aerial attacks on non-military targets and centres of civilian concentration whichever side is responsible. Such attacks result in the wanton killing or wounding of large numbers of defenceless civilians, they terrorise the local population, make the task of eventual reconciliation more difficult and serve no military purpose whatever.
We have deplored all such attacks that have been brought to our notice in the past. A recent incident, as Deputies will be aware from press reports, was an attack on a road near Owerri which resulted in the death of among others an Irish sister engaged in the relief operation there. The Government have been greatly concerned by these reports and we have taken the matter up with the Nigerian authorities through our Embassy in Lagos.
I am sometimes asked why the Government do not recognise Biafra as an independent State. This question is usually based on the assumption that by so doing some humanitarian gain could be achieved. This is, of course, not so. The Government have never contemplated granting recognition as a separate State to the areas claimed by the secessionist authorities. There are many and weighty reasons for this but one important practical reason is that if we were to do so, we would immediately cease to be able to conduct a dialogue with both sides in our endeavour to promote peace and to increase relief, and most important we would seriously hinder or possibly be the cause of ending the very valuable humanitarian work being carried out by Irish people, particularly our missionaries, on both sides. And let me emphasise that this humanitarian work on the spot is the greatest contribution by far that Ireland can make to help the people of Nigeria, particularly those in the war affected areas, at this critical time.
In accordance with this premise, the whole question of relief for Nigeria and Biafra has been a major preoccupation of my Department during the period under review. The heroic work for relief and rehabilitation being performed by our missionaries, both Catholic and Protestant, and by our medical teams in the field has been generously supported by contributions in cash and kind and offers of service from the public here at home. A survey made in the first quarter of this year ranked Ireland as eleventh among the world's largest donor countries in Nigerian relief and placed the Irish per capita contribution in fifth place among all countries. The general concern of the public in this matter has been fully shared by the Government.
As Deputies are aware, while there has been suffering on both sides in the conflict the major suffering among the civilian population has been taking place in the Biafran controlled areas, where the people have been concentrated in a small enclave, only a fraction of the former area of Eastern Nigeria. In this congested area, the civilian population have had to depend since early 1968 on the nightly airlift of essential relief supplies organised by the international relief organisations, with Caritas Internationalis as the courageous pioneer in the whole relief operation. The organisations have been principally the ad hoc interdenominational group of Church agencies known as Joint Church Aid and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The principal relief negotiator with both sides has been the ICRC supplemented since February of this year by the work of the United States Government Special Co-ordinator for Nigerian Relief, Ambassador Ferguson. The ICRC has, of course, also been continuously engaged in its primary responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions in regard to prisoners of war, civilian victims of the war and so on. The relief negotiations which were extremely complex and delicate, were aimed at obtaining agreement between the two sides for new improved methods of supply, whether by land, by water or by air. It has long been recognised that not only are the relief supplies which are brought in by the night flights inadequate but the hazards of the present system have been shown by the fact that to date 25 pilots and crew have paid the supreme penalty in this humanitarian cause.
Early in the current year the Dutch Government took an initiative in an endeavour to assist the relief negotiations, by inviting a group of the major donor countries sharing a generally similar stand as regards the political issues in the war to meet for informal discussions on the problems involved. This group which has come to be known as the Hague group comprises Austria, the Benelux Countries, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, the United States and ourselves. The relief negotiations involved have been concerned principally with the opening up of a water route into Biafra and of an air corridor for relief flights in daytime to Uli. As the possibility of a water route appears to be no longer feasible under present conditions, I will confine my remarks to a brief description of the negotiations for day flights.
The ICRC have always been in favour of day flights, and they have been engaged in difficult negotiations with both sides on this question since May, 1968. As Deputies will recall, in the earlier part of this year, the ICRC came under attack from both sides during these negotiations and on 5th June an ICRC relief plane was shot down by the Federal airforce. This was followed by the declaration of the ICRC Commissioner General for West Africa as persona non grata in Lagos and the removal by the Federal Government of the co-ordinating role which had been given to the ICRC as from 30th June.
Despite all this, the ICRC made a further attempt at the beginning of August to suggest to both sides the general framework of a compromise plan for daylight flights. This plan required a main concession on the part of the Federal Government to allow flights to take off from the ICRC bases outside Nigeria with inspection at these bases and on the part of the Biafran authorities the dropping of their condition for third party security guarantees. Already on 30th July the United Nations Secretary General U Thant had addressed an appeal to both sides urging the restarting of the ICRC emergency flights "even if concessions are required from both sides".
Basing ourselves on the new ICRC proposals and on the appeal of the Secretary General, we made approaches to both sides, pointing out that the Government strongly reject the idea of the starvation of the civilian population no matter who is responsible. We asked specifically that both sides should make compromises, as requested by the ICRC and the UN Secretary General, and we urged acceptance of the ICRC compromise plan.
By the latter part of August, the Biafran authorities had indicated their agreement in principle to the ICRC relief plan, with the proviso, however, that it was "the understanding of the Biafran Government that its acceptance of the ... proposals is without prejudice to the continued use of Uli airport for its own operations": and a detailed agreement was worked out on 27th August between the Biafran authorities and the ICRC in Geneva. In this agreement there was no mention of the vexed question of third party security guarantees. The Federal Military Government, despite an initial unfavourable reaction, continued the relief negotiations, and finally on 13th September signed with the ICRC in Lagos a separate agreement which in the main provisions was similar to the previous agreement between the Biafran authorities and ICRC. Similar to the clause inserted by the Biafran authorities, the Federal Government included a clause that "this agreement shall be without prejudice to military operations by the Federal Government".
The agreement with the Federal Nigerian Government specified a trial period of three weeks and a relatively small number of flights per day was envisaged. The ICRC hoped that these separate agreements, which apart from the clauses referring to military operations, were similar in their provisions, would be accepted in a positive spirit by both sides as a basis for beginning daylight flights on a trial basis. As to the so called "military clauses", it was always conceded that, relief flights or no relief flights, the war would continue to run its course, but that the relief agreement should be of no military advantage to either side and that the ICRC would guarantee this.
During this period, the Government were through our permanent mission in Geneva closely in touch with the ICRC and my Department was represented specifically in connection with Nigerian relief at the XXIst International Conference of the Red Cross which took place in Istanbul early in September. In addition, we were in contact with other interested Governments particularly the members of the Hague group. The ICRC were confident of success and they had their relief planes standing ready at Cotonou. On 14th September, however, the Biafrans announced that the agreement reached in Lagos was unacceptable because of the so called military clause and they reverted to their previous demand for third party security guarantees.
We were greatly concerned by this reaction. The Federal Government had shown humanity and courage in making the important concessions which the ICRC, supported by many Governments including our own, had requested. I can fully appreciate the deep-seated Biafran fears about security, but in this case I feel that these fears were exaggerated, particularly with the agreement being backed by the great authority of the ICRC. This lack of progress is greatly to be deplored, because of the serious consequences which may result for the civilian populations concerned. If the ICRC compromise plan could be put into operation and tested for a limited time, we would have hoped that a better and more extensive plan could be worked out based on actual experience and on the trust built up between the two sides. Such a legally agreed scheme acceptable to both parties could be of the greatest importance particularly when one bears in mind how tenuous the present arrangement is and that if, some day, the risks prove too great for the night flights to continue, the sole life line that is keeping hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in existence would be cut off. I should add that the Government made known their willingness to consider favourably any request that might be received for the provision, with the consent of the parties concerned, of Irish personnel to assist with relief inspection.
As regards the Government's contribution for relief in Nigeria-Biafra in the current year, as Deputies will recall, we have already pledged, subject to the approval of the Dáil, £25,000 for Irish Red Cross medical teams for either side and 25,000 dollars for the UNICEF Emergency Programmes for Nigeria/Biafra. My Department is at present engaged in urgent discussions with the Irish relief organisations including the Irish Red Cross and Africa Concern as to further ways in which we can assist.
Apart from the suffering in Nigeria, there has also been great suffering in another part of Africa. I refer to the recent flood disaster in Tunisia which has resulted in considerable loss of life and has left over 250,000 people in North Africa homeless. The League of Red Cross Societies and the Tunisian Red Crescent have launched an international appeal to aid the victims of this disaster and the Irish Red Cross is making available out of the emergency relief fund a sum of £500 to the League of Red Cross Societies for this purpose. The Government have the greatest sympathy for the people of Tunisia in this time of natural disaster.
On the question of disarmament, the Secretary General of the United Nations in a recent introduction to the annual report of the organisation has stated that the momentum and promise of previous years appears to have been lost and that the past year has seen little progress. He has pointed to the disquieting fact that the solution for the problems of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is still hanging in the balance, that the testing of nuclear weapons continues apace, that global military expenditures continue to mount at an alarming rate and most dangerous of all that the world seems threatened by an uncontrollable escalation of the nuclear arms race.
As a government we are deeply anxious at this lack of progress in the various proposals for collateral disarmament and particularly in the failure to halt once and for all the spread of nuclear weapons both within and outside existing stockpiles. Deputies will recall that there were high hopes early last year when the two rival super powers, the USA and the USSR, agreed on the final text of a non-proliferation treaty. That treaty was widely commended by the General Assembly and was finally opened for signature on 1st July, 1968. As the first member of the United Nations to propose in 1958 a draft resolution in the General Assembly on the prevention of the wider spread of nuclear weapons and as having proposed in 1961 the conclusion of an international agreement for this purpose, we were naturally gratified when our suggestions in this vital field of disarmament appeared at last to be bearing fruit.
In the debate in the General Assembly in May, 1968, on this item numerous delegations paid tribute to the wisdom and the perseverance of my predecessor as Minister, Deputy Frank Aiken, in the pursuit of his ideas in this matter. As an example of these tributes I quote from the official record of the General Assembly of 30th April, 1968, when the Foreign Minister of Canada, Mr. Sharp, speaking in the First Committee said:
Many delegations will recall the early proposal put before the Assembly, designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. That was the renowned "Irish resolution" of the late fifties which was eventually and unanimously adopted on 4th December, 1961. We are all indebted to the Foreign Minister of Ireland for his foresight and fortitude in persevering in that initiative—often in the face of formidable odds.
The Government have never considered the non-proliferation treaty as a completely satisfactory instrument or for that matter as an end in itself. We have considered, however, that the first essential is to obtain the widest possible adherence to the treaty both on account of the immediate effect of the treaty in halting the spread of nuclear weapons and also because this itself will help to create the climate for the negotiation of many other very desirable agreements. Such agreements might include for instance measures to cover further security guarantees and the vast field of making available the peaceful uses of atomic power for all humanity. We have stressed this view both in the General Assembly and also at the Conference of Non-Nuclear Weapon States which took place in Geneva in August, 1968. Recently we submitted our application to join the International Atomic Energy Agency in order to participate more fully in all these developments and my Department was represented at the Vienna meeting of that agency last month. As yet, however, the non-proliferation treaty has not entered into force because the required number of ratifications by 43 states including those of all the three signatory nuclear powers have not been forthcoming. Only 17 states so far have ratified the non-proliferation treaty and these do not include either the USA or the USSR.
As Deputies will be aware Ireland was the first country to ratify the treaty. Already at the present session of the General Assembly I have expressed our concern that the treaty has not yet become effective, and we shall continue to urge the vital necessity for the entry into force of this treaty as the single most important and urgent disarmament measure which can be effectively implemented at this time.
At the present session of the Assembly, we intend also to support any further constructive disarmament measures which are proposed. These will probably include proposals on bacteriological and chemical warfare, the draft treaty on the denuclearisation of the sea bed, and the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty to include testing under ground. We are glad that preliminary discussions on the opening of bilateral US-USSR strategic arms limitation talks have now been announced for next month.
Turning to the question of peace-keeping, an area in which the United Nations can operate with the greatest of practical effect, I regret to report that a solution to the fundamental problem of achieving adequate financial arrangements seems to be as distant as ever. The special 33 Nations committee which was established in 1965 to undertake a comprehensive review of peace-keeping operations in all their aspects, including ways of overcoming the present financial difficulties of the United Nations, has been taken up with discussion of a number of side issues and has made no progress on the central question of financing.
It seems unfortunately true that at this stage the political will to substitute an adequate system for the present unsatisfactory method of ad hoc voluntary financing is lacking among member states. We regard this as a central flaw in the structure of the organisation and we shall continue to bring to the attention of the Assembly the duty of all member states to see that a comprehensive and soundly based solution should be found if the United Nations is to go forward as an influence for peace and security in the world.
As regards the practical aspects of peace-keeping, we have continued to maintain our contingent of troops with the United Nations force in Cyprus. The strength of the contingent, stationed in the Lefka district in north west Cyprus, was 507 all ranks up to September, 1968. Since then, as a result of a decision taken by the Secretary-General in view of the improved situation, the size of the force has been reduced considerably. The present Irish contingent numbers 419 officers and men including the Irish element at the headquarters in Nicosia.
The basic function of the United Nations force in Cyprus, as defined by the Security Council, is to prevent a recurrence of fighting and as necessary to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions on the island. The Secretary-General has recently stated that the situation has continued to improve slowly but steadily from the point of view of the return to normal conditions of civilian life. He has further stated that this is in good measure attributable to the tireless efforts of the United Nations peace-keeping operation, now in its sixth year. I should like to pay a tribute here to all the Irish soldiers who have served and are still serving with the United Nations in Cyprus. They are held in high regard by all with whom they have come in contact and in addition they have reflected honour on the United Nations and their country.
The Secretary-General has, however, sounded a note of warning as regards the future of the peace-keeping force. He has pointed to the urgent need for progress in the talks aimed at restoring normal relations between the two communities—the Greeks and the Turks— in Cyprus and stated that the passage of too much time may hamper rather than facilitate a settlement. He has described how in the five and a half years since the violent disturbances first abruptly severed communications between the two communities, a new generation of Greek and Turkish Cypriots has been growing up who hardly know each other at all except in hostility.
The Secretary-General has expressed his view that the members of this generation will have a far greater difficulty in finding a basis for living in peace with each other than those of the older generation now searching for a solution. The Government fully share the Secretary-General's concern at the slow rate of progress which has been made in seeking solutions for the basic issues dividing the two communities, and we are pleased to note the Secretary-General's offer of good offices to the parties concerned either directly or through his Special Representative in Cyprus.
In the Middle East, the second area in which Ireland is helping the United Nations in its peace-keeping role, the situation, as Deputies are only too well aware, has gravely deteriorated. There have been an increasing series of incursions and counter incursions across the cease-fire lines, large scale guerilla activities, and reprisals which have grown in frequency and extent. The Secretary-General has recently said that war actually is being waged throughout the area, short only of battles between large bodies of troops. In the last few months the Secretary-General has warned the Security Council on two occasions of the almost complete breakdown of its cease-fire in the Suez Canal sector and the virtual resumption of war there despite—and, I quote the words of the Secretary-General—"the unceasing and valiant efforts of the United Nations military observers, who are exposed to great danger, to maintain the cease-fire."
It is in this situation that our officers with great courage are providing such a valuable service on both sides of the cease-fire line. Fourteen of these officers are currently serving in the difficult Suez area, two are in Damascus, two in Jerusalem and two in Tiberias. We are of course constantly in touch with the United Nations Secretariat about the safety and welfare of these men and I can assure you that the United Nations is taking all reasonable precautions and safeguards. I think all of us owe a very great debt of gratitude to these officers.
As regards the fundamental issues involved in the Middle East, the views of the Government are well known. As a first step, however, it is urgently necessary that both sides should desist from all provocative acts of any sort, and that they co-operate with the Special Representative of the Secretary General, Ambassador Jarring, in his efforts to negotiate for a settlement between the parties concerned in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council on this matter.
In the present year the Council of Europe has celebrated the twentieth anniversary of its establishment. As a founder member it has been our policy during those 20 years to co-operate to the maximum extent possible with the other members to achieve the basic aim of the Council which is the greater unity of its members.
In line with this policy we have continued to participate fully in the deliberations of the organisation at parliamentary and governmental levels. The parliamentary delegation attended plenary meetings of the Consultative Assembly which met at Strasbourg in May and September, 1968, and in January, May and September, 1969. Members of the parliamentary delegation also attended the several extrasessional meetings of the Committees of the Assembly. Ireland was host to one of these meetings, that of the Economic Committee, which was held in Dublin in July, 1968.
At governmental level Ireland was represented by my predecessor at the meeting of the committee of ministers held in Paris in December, 1968, and at that held in London last May to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the organisation. We are represented at all meetings of the committee of ministers' deputies which meets in Strasbourg about once a month. Officials from Government Departments regularly attend meetings of committees of governmental experts of the Council which provide the committee of ministers with technical advise over most of the fields of activity of the Council.
Since the Estimate for my Department was last presented, the Government have ratified the European Agreement for the prevention of broadcasts transmitted from stations outside national territories and signed the European Agreement for the protection of animals during international transport. In addition it is intended to ratify within the next few weeks the European Agreement on the abolition of visas for refugees.
Perhaps the field in which the Council of Europe is best known is that of human rights. With the ratification in October, 1968, of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government became a party to all the human rights instruments of the Council of Europe. In order further to achieve the collective advancement of human rights, the Irish Parliamentary delegation at the Consulative Assembly, led by Deputy Aiken, submitted at the September meeting a motion for a Recommendation calling for an additional Protocol to the Human Rights Convention. The Irish motion secured a total of 42 signatures from 11 countries, was inscribed on the Register of the Assembly without objection and has now been reffered for consideration to the Assembly's Legal Affairs Committee. While it is clear that these proposals will need careful consideration by all European Governments I feel that great credit is due to Deputy Aiken and the entire delegation for their initiative and constructive efforts on this important question.
Deputies will recall that the year 1968 was designated as the International Year for Human Rights to commemorate the adoption in 1948 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a major part of the programme emphasis in this country was placed on the signature or ratification of the various international conventions or agreements which deal in one way or another with this subject. I have already mentioned the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention. In addition the Government in the course of the year signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, acceded to the Convention on the Political Rights of Women and also acceded to the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The Government have also approved the preparation of legislation to enable this country to accede to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
It must be accepted that trade and foreign earnings are virtually the lifeblood of this country and I am most anxious to see my Department's Missions abroad playing an everincreasing role in these spheres. Indeed, the importance of ensuring the effectiveness of our Missions in these fields of activity is a matter I feel deserves my closest attention. I have no doubt that the Missions are well placed to make an increasingly important contribution to the country's efforts to increase its foreign earnings. They have ready access to the necessary contacts for this purpose and can draw upon a wealth of accumulated knowledge of local conditions. While my Department's Missions are, I am confident, serving their country well in the economic field, I am particularly concerned to ensure that their potential is exploited to the full. In this context I attach particular importance to the suitable training for economic work of the Department's officers, and this is a matter which is being kept under constant review. I also feel that the effectiveness of our Missions would be improved if greater use were made of their facilities by exporters and others concerned with the increase of our foreign earnings.
Owing to the increasing liberalisation of world trade, the scope for the conclusion of bilateral trade agreements at Government level has tended to diminish. Our Trade Agreements with France and the Federal Republic of Germany have been renewed, but their content has naturally been reduced because of the operation of the Common Market. The possibility of negotiating a Trade Agreement with Japan continues to be explored. Because of the continuing import surplus in our trade with Eastern European countries, the Government recently decided to seek discussions with certain of these countries with a view to the negotiation of Trade Agreements which would open the way to increased Irish exports to them. It is now expected that talks with some of the countries concerned will take place fairly soon.
Ireland continues to make its due contribution to the work of the OECD. Among the matters now receiving close attention in that organisation is the proposed scheme of general tariff preferences for the developing countries. Each prospective participant in the scheme has been requested to submit to the organisation a provisional offer of tariff preferences. There is almost universal agreement that a worthwhile tariff preferences scheme could be of real benefit to the developing countries. We have supported the scheme and have tabled a provisional offer. It is not possible to foresee at this stage what the final content of the scheme will be or when it is likely to come into operation.
As we all know, the general question of aid to developing countries has been a matter of increasing public interest here during the last few years. This, no doubt, derives from a growing awareness of the immense problems facing those countries in their efforts to raise the living standards of their peoples. Indeed, in the world generally there is mounting interest in the whole question and the approach of the Second Development Decade, which begins on 1st January, 1971, has helped to focus the re-thinking which is being done on the subject.
I have no doubt that our people generally feel deep concern about the needs of the developing countries and would wish this country to make, and to be seen to make, a worthwhile and realistic effort in the aid field. I have accordingly thought it appropriate to initiate a review of the whole aid position at this stage. My Department, therefore, recently commenced discussion on the subject with the other Departments concerned. It is intended that the inter-departmental consultations should produce an evaluation of our aid performance to date and frame recommendations for future policy.
I would not wish to appear to be in any way complacent about our performance to date in regard to aid. I can say, however, that our total official aid has been steadily increasing. It has been in excess of £1 million for each of the last three years and our stated aim, as expressed in the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development, is to increase it further. This official aid consists mainly of contributions to international organisations concerned with development aid such as the UN Development Programme, the World Food Programme, the World Bank and the UN Children's Fund. We also do what we can to aid the developing countries by providing training and educational facilities here for their nationals and by recruiting qualified Irish personnel for service overseas.
But by far the greatest part of our contribution to the developing countries comes from the private sector. We cannot but feel justly proud of the great work being done in these countries by our missionaries, doctors, nurses, teachers and others. In addition, substantial help is being provided as a result of the fund-raising activities of private organisations here. It is only right that I should use this opportunity to pay well-deserved tribute to these truly humanitarian efforts.
There are no ready or immediate solutions to the difficulties of the developing countries. For our part we must, I think, continue to keep their cause in the forefront of our minds and resolve to play what part we can in assisting them at the cost, if necessary, of diverting some resources from uses which would be of more immediate selfish interest to ourselves. As I see it, a degree of self-sacrifice and unselfishness must inspire our policy if it is to be really creditable.
Ireland has continued to serve as a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Our three-year period of membership extends to the end of 1970. The 27-mem-ber council, which has two main sessions every year, directs and coordinates the economic and social work of the United Nations and its related agencies. Its work programme embraces a great volume and diversity of problems and we have been concerned to make what contribution we could to the council's deliberations and decisions.
My Department continues to attach importance to the provision and dissemination abroad of accurate and up-to-date information on Ireland in support of our objectives in the international sphere. Amongst its activities in this field are the development of contacts with the press and other communications media by our diplomats abroad at all levels; the briefing by the Department of foreign journalists who visit Ireland and the invitation to Ireland of selected groups of journalists from time to time to familiarise them with the Irish scene. In addition, the Department produces a fortnightly bulletin which is widely distributed abroad, booklets and brochures in several languages and films on various aspects of national life. I am arranging to have the Department's information activities further expanded.
With the advice of the Cultural Relations Committee the Department is pursuing abroad a varied programme designed to make our culture better known abroad. I would like to pay tribute to the work of the committee, the distinguished members of which are unstinting in giving of their time and talents. I am glad of this opportunity to express in public my sincere thanks to the members of the committee.
I am sure the members of the Dáil would like me to express our pleasure that General de Gaulle chose Ireland for an extended stay earlier this year.
Since I became Minister for External Affairs the two matters which have most engaged my attention have been the North of Ireland problem and the EEC. As I explained, because of my intervention in last week's debate I have not mentioned the North of Ireland problem today.
The statement I have now made to the House has dealt in varying detail with some of the more important aspects of my Department's many responsibilities. Each of these has its own particular significance in the context of our over-all foreign policy. If I were to single out one subject, apart of course from that of the North of Ireland, which will require my special attention in the coming months, as I see it now that subject will be the EEC. While there is, as yet, no assurance of early progress towards enlargement of the Communities I feel I must spare no effort in promoting our interests in this matter.
