In his opening remarks the Minister for Foreign Affairs commented that foreign affairs is an important area which perhaps in the past had not been given sufficient emphasis by the Irish public. In making that comment I suggest he did a disservice to a former Fianna Fáil Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Frank Aiken, to a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mr. Seán MacBride, and to a former Taoiseach who led the country into the UN in 1956. He then stated that the framework or the value system which the Government wish to operate should be defined. He went on to the four areas he wished to concentrate on. I do not wish to misinterpret his arguments. First of all he said:
Ours is a small country, a part of Western Europe, and we share a common culture with other countries in our region. We are a democracy, deeply committed to democratic ideas. We have—with some effort I may say—attained and consolidated our independence as a State although our history has left us with one major unresolved issue.
In economic matters we are not so prosperous as we would like, though we are rich by the standards of much of the world. This imposes certain responsibilities. But we are also relatively vulnerable and we have a considerable interest in a stable as well as an equitable international economic order. Agriculture is still our greatest industry.
He spoke about our position on neutrality as a factor in international affairs and spoke about the framework for a foreign affairs policy. I think that matter was dealt with adequately at Question Time in the exchanges between this side of the House, by Deputy O'Leary, and the Minister. What surprises me is that in attempting to define a framework and a series of constraints, and by implication some sort of value system, the Minister was very thin on values and on the operation of the value system the Government propose to refer to, having recognised the framework of constraint within which a small country has to function. Later I will show just how such a value system is essential if a Department of Foreign Affairs wish to evaluate certain policies and actions in different areas.
A value system is not some kind of luxury or suburban addition that perhaps Deputies on this side of the House can have for themselves. Without such a value system I do not think there can be any responsible system of foreign affairs policy other than one based purely on pragmatic selfish concerns. I should not be surprised if that was the basis for such a foreign policy from the far side of the House, though my respect for the Minister would lead me to believe there is more to a policy for which he is responsible than that low pragmatic basis. In the absence of any clear definition of a policy other than a commitment to democracy and concern for the under-developed world, I suggest that a value system and a guiding principle for a country such as ours should be along the lines stated in the foreign policy statement of the Labour Party for 1969:
The safe-guarding of independence, while necessarily the primary objective of a small country's foreign policy, is not an end in itself. The foreign policy choices of an Irish socialist Government should be guided by the following principles:
1. The recognition of the overriding interest which all of us have in the strengthening of the defences of world peace;
2. The recognition that the conditions under which most of the world's population lives require social and economic change on a revolutionary scale;
3. The recognition that outside attempts to resist such change—by for example, propping up corrupt and unpopular régimes in poor countries—extend to an incalculable degree the amount of violence which is likely to accompany major social change in poor countries, and greatly increase the danger to world peace. World poverty and accelerating population expansion are certain to precipitate a major world crisis, probably by the mid-70's. If this crisis is met by most developed countries in the spirit of counter-revolutionary ideology, humanity will be threatened with extinction.
The recognition of the common interest which small countries have in making it unpopular and unrewarding for big countries to intervene in their affairs. This implies the application of the same standards to such intervention, no matter what large country perpetrates them. Both communism and anti-communism have been invoked as ideological pretexts for such intervention. It is in the common interest of small countries to refuse to accept such pretexts.
The recognition that imperialism and racism are major, and allied, enemies of the human race as a whole, and that Ireland's historic traditions give its representatives a special responsibility to resist and expose the workings of these evils.
I do not expect the Minister would disagree with much of that but I am saddened he did not seek to put it on the record when he took the opportunity in his opening speech to refer to the value system or framework within which the Minister and his Government would operate a foreign policy.
He identified four areas of concentration. The first was Northern Ireland; the second was international economic relations and the European Economic Community; the third was world political affairs and the fourth, and final, area was development aid. He concluded by making references to the administration role of his Department. The Minister dealt extensively with the first item. In view of the fact that the meeting between himself and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is to take place tomorrow and this matter was discussed to a certain extent at Question Time yesterday, and bearing in mind the time constraints that I have, I propose that this matter be dealt with by the official spokesman of my party on foreign affairs, the party leader and, therefore, I shall concentrate on the other three areas the Minister identified.
On the question of international economic relations in the EEC, the Minister talked about how the Department of Foreign Affairs is only one of many interconnected with foreign affairs and international economic relations and he goes on specifically to talk about Ireland's role in economic terms with the EEC. He had a number of things to say in which the House might be very interested because, in effect, he was speaking in the context of the policy line adopted by the Fianna Fáil Party. He talked at some length about the regional fund and he talked as a Minister for Foreign Affairs in a Government and a party which was over anxious to get us into the Common Market and campaigned with the main Opposition party at the time, Fine Gael, to take us into the Common Market. One of the advantages of membership was going to be the regional fund and regional aid. This was to be one of the major benefits. That was the carrot. There was no doubt on the hustings that regional aid would be a reality. There was no doubt in all the literature produced that subsequently bred the goat that is with us now. Now the Minister and his Government have some responsibility for what has happened and the Minister said today:
I myself have raised the question at a number of Foreign Affairs Councils. The Taoiseach and members of the Government including myself discussed this problem with the President of the Commission on a recent visit here.
Earlier on he says he and the Government are anxious that the regional policy be extended and, accordingly, they must accord the emergence of a Community Regional Policy a very high place on our list of priorities. The Labour Party opposed entry and, on behalf of that party, I would reply to the Minister that, having got us into the Common Market, they are now turning around and saying we must accord the emergence of a Community regional policy a very high place on a list of priorities which is somewhat different from what was said during the referendum campaign. I can understand the Minister having some difficulty in seriously pursuing a regional policy with the EEC or, more to the point, obtaining credibility from the other eight member states for the implementation of a serious and worth-while regional policy, the sort of policy that was promised, because a regional policy in real terms within the context of the nine member states is a form of wealth redistribution. It is a form of transfer of net resources from one part of the nine to another part and, in order to do that, one has to have some form of wealth taxation system. There are many ways in which this can be done but one must accept the principle that some form of wealth taxation is an essential prerequisite before one can get an effective regional policy.
I would be interested in hearing the Minister explain to the House how this Fianna Fáil Government can advocate a wealth tax in Europe and abolish it in Ireland. Leaving aside any criticisms one might have about the implementation of such a tax from a fiscal point of view, leaving aside some very valid criticisms and dealing solely with a question of principle, how can the Minister stand up here and abolish a wealth tax to the cheers of 84 Members of this House on the Government side and, on the other hand, demand it as some kind of right in the Council of Europe? It does not surprise me or anyone on this side of the House to find the Minister now reduced to saying he is going to accord it a very high place on his list of priorities. That is a critical one and it goes back to the question of the value system within which the Minister is trying to operate a foreign policy. Earlier on he says the policy cannot be arbitrary or irrational. There must be some cohesion to the way in which the policy is operated. In the absence of such a commitment in one area I would suggest it is quite logical to argue that the Minister has undermined his own position in this area.
The Minister referred briefly to the European Parliament in the context of direct elections. It would be proper for me to say on behalf of my party that we fully support his aspirations for the developing economic and political powers of that Assembly. We will give the Minister every possible support to get the strengthening of the European Parliament he thinks is necessary and we believe is essential.
I will be interested to hear how he is going to sell that line to his corunners in the forthcoming direct European elections, the Gaullists, whose enthusiasm for a directly elected Parliament with extended powers would not exactly match the enthusiasm of the Irish section of the European Progressive Democrats. Here again with the absence of any kind of coherent value system we have the Minister and his party saying one thing one day and something else another day. The net effect is to undermine the credibility of their position in our eyes and in the eyes of anybody else who cares to look at the record. Consequently that must reduce their capacity to deliver what they are promising and claiming they want to deliver.
For example, if in the European Parliament the issue subsequently arises where the Parliament enters some kind of confrontation with the Nine member states, and the various groups come out in favour of an integrated Europe and an extended parliamentary system with powers to the European Parliament, will Fianna Fáil be hidebound by their alliance in the Parliament? Can the Minister seriously stand over what he is saying in his Estimate speech? I hope he can and we will support any measures he takes to achieve those objectives. My point is that it is contradictory to make those comments and not refer to the other constraints that are hung around the neck of the present Administration, whether it is in regard to regional policy or the question of the European Parliament.
The Minister rightly said when speaking on international economic relations and particularly the EEC, that the House will have another opportunity to discuss these matters at some length and in particular the role of the EEC when the Eleventh Report is debated here. In anticipation of an early debate before the Recess, and in the interest of brevity, I propose to leave aside the other references the Minister made to the EEC which vary from fisheries policy to competition, and to economic and monetary union, all of which are highly technical and specialised, and to another matter to which he did not make enough reference, that is, the Commission's proposals for youth unemployment.
These major issues fall rightly within the domain of foreign affairs and an economic Department and should be debated here as soon as possible. No doubt Deputy Woods will support me in hoping that the Report from the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities will be discussed here as soon as possible. I am making those points simply in recognition of the fact that the Minister has devoted time and energy to these matters and to say that perhaps we will have another day on which it would be more appropriate to discuss them.
On the question of international economic relations I want to raise the question of DEVCO, the State development organisation's co-ordinating body, under two headings, first the role of economic and international relations and second, the role of development aid. The Minister said he was in favour of encouraging the State companies DEVCO so creatively pioneered. If he is serious he should set about establishing some sort of comprehensive enabling legislation for every State body registered with DEVCO. There is a model in the United States under the United States Foreign Assistance Technical Act legislation—I do not have the precise reference. The US recognised that in many cases local agencies operating within the context of the United States were, through their articles of association, terms of reference or foundation legislation, inhibited from giving technical assistance on a commercial basis to outside countries or recipient States. We will believe the Minister wants to do this when he comes to this House and informs us that he has set up the procedure whereby enabling legislation will be drafted by his Department or by the relevant Departments.
There are serious constraints on some State agencies in regard to operating overseas. These overseas operations are economic operations, hard currency earners, profitable, productive enterprises, as well as having the benefit of adding to the personal expertise and experience of the Irish enterprises involved and extending our direct connections with the rest of the world. The first test of sincerity and performance we will be putting to the Minister is the evidence of enabling legislation that will clear the decks and make it possible for all State agencies to operate without the kind of restraints some of them have had in the past.
It is not for me to attempt to detail what those constraints are because the Minister is well aware of them through his connections with DEVCO and the other agencies operating overseas. It would be unfair for me to presume that he was uniquely responsible for the anomaly. With the commencement of our aid programme by the last Government many of these anomalies did not appear until they were met on the ground. The previous Administration bear some responsibility for not attempting to produce this enabling legislation. There are constraints and limits on everybody. Now that they have been fully recognised and are seen to exist in a clear way, the need to have them resolved is overriding and should be done as quickly as possible. There are no Parliamentary reasons in terms of secure majorities to suggest why it could not be done. This side of the House will give the Government every co-operation in getting such enabling legislation passed.
In relation to some of the difficulties that will arise in attempting to achieve some of the Minister's objectives I would like the Minister to clarify his attitude and the attitude of the Government to the activities of the State companies in their dealings with other countries throughout the world. This goes back to my opening remarks about the necessity to have not just a framework or a recognition of the constraints within which foreign policy must operate, but that it is also necessary to have some form of value system within which one can measure the way in which policy is being implemented and the way in which we are attempting to achieve objectives. What is the Minister's attitude to the operations of the ESB in the Philippines as a State company operating a commercial technical exchange in a country where Irish missionaries, whom the Minister lauds elsewhere, have raised very specific objections to the denial of human rights and the actions of the administration there? Similarly, with Aer Lingus it can be argued that they have been operating in some countries whose policies may or may not be in accord with the concerns of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We do not know, because there was no attempt to establish any kind of criteria or value system at the outset of the Minister's speech which he said was important for keynoting the terms of reference which he would like to give himself in terms of running the Department of Foreign Affairs.
We all have different views on this matter ranging from the totally pragmatic to the highly idealistic. In both extremes we could arrive at a situation where we would deal with everybody or nobody. To deal with nobody is certainly not practical and to deal with everybody is hardly acceptable to the vast majority of people. There has to be some system in which this can be clarified. It is the responsibility of the Minister to give guidelines in terms of reference for the State companies with regard to this matter. In relation to this the Minister should indicate if the Government are aware that in the inefficient guidebook for this year Bord Fáilte are still listed as having an official representative in Johannesburg. On inquiring from the anti-apartheid movement they were informed that the person named was in fact a representative of Aer Lingus in Johannesburg. Whether the presence of such a person operating in a dual or singular capacity is in accordance with the Government's policy or not is not clear from the inquiries I made. I accept that there will be anomalies and time lags and that in many cases organisations which are not immediately under the control of the relevant Minister may undertake certain things which would appear to be at variance with Government policy, but it behoves the Minister to clarify the policy and to say how it is to be implemented. Regrettably in the speech today, and in replies to questions put down to the Minister of State at the Department of Education with regard to apartheid and the sports grants that were recently operated, there appears to be no direction regarding connections with South Africa. I may be straying unnecessarily from the Minister's speech but I am trying to reinforce my primary argument that if we wish to operate as a constructive Opposition it is essential that the Government indicate some terms of reference and some set of values which they have taken to themselves in order to operate in the area of foreign affairs so that we can honestly and fairly criticise the gap between what they set out to achieve and what they achieve. In doing that exercise vigorously from this side of the House we will be under-pinning one of the values that comes through from the Minister's speech, that is his full-blooded commitment to the democratic process. The Minister in his speech has left himself open to being far more pragmatic in office than he appears to have been while spokesman in Opposition.
In relation to international trade and the State companies, I hope that the reluctance of the Government to recognise the positive role that the State productive sector has to make in developing our economy at home will not be an impediment to encouraging the State sector to get involved in productive activities in the field of international economic affairs. I hope that the undoubted bias that exists in the Fianna Fáil Party against the public sector, particularly the productive public sector such as Bord na Móna, Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta and other such groups, as distinct from service type operations, a bias which was reiterated on more than one occasion and which was upheld as recently as yesterday at a meeting of the Joint Committee on the EEC, will not spill over and obliterate the intention in relation to encouraging the State sector to seek economic activities overseas.
I referred to the role of DEVCO in its capacity under our bilateral and Lomé aid obligations, but in the area where it can perform and earn money, I would like some assurance in reply to this debate, that the ideological bias which exists domestically with regard to the productive State sector will not be an impediment to the envisaged role of the State sector overseas. I will use as my test to that the appearance or non-appearance of enabling legislation to clear the ground for the State sector in operating overseas.
The third section of the Minister's speech refers to world political affairs. The Minister at the outset talked about the apparent lack of interest in foreign affairs that we as a community seem to have with the exception of the overriding issue of the relationship between Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and Great Britain. I have never regarded the relationship between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland as being foreign affairs nor Great Britain's involvement here. Apart from that, there appears to be a lack of interest in foreign affairs. That can be understood. It is not unreasonable because of the very limited role that a small country like Ireland could have played in the past. However small the role, we still played it in a full way in certain periods in history, in the League of Nations before the second world war, the contribution made to the Imperial Conference in 1927, the contribution made to the development of the Council of Europe and European rights and so on immediately after the war, and the strong espousal of disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, made by the former Minister, Mr. Frank Aiken, in the United Nations.
These were areas that were of concern perhaps more to the individuals and the parties rather than to the public and our capacity to act on the world stage depended very much on our powers of persuasion and our moral cleanliness, if you like, in regard to a colonial past and not much else. But by virtue of our entry into and membership of the EEC which includes the present situation where the nine member states are attempting to move towards common policy positions on major issues of foreign affairs, we no longer have to depend purely on our powers of persuasion. We have in a vague and perhaps ill-defined form a power which we never previously had, albeit a negative one, and to that extent foreign affairs is no longer an irrelevant luxury that can be talked out on a Thursday afternoon by people who happen to have an interest in things beyond the seas. It affects us in a very real way. First, we have a responsibility by virtue of having a say and therefore some power. Secondly, many of the economic consequences of foreign affairs decisions have a direct impact on what happens in Ireland. I would hope that the performance we have had from the Department of Foreign Affairs to date and from the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs which has certainly, I believe—I say this in no way attempting to plámás both incumbents —upheld the high tradition that Iveagh House has shown in the past, would strengthen our awareness of the dependency this country has on affairs beyond the confines of the State.
The Minister listed a few items which were of concern to him. I should like to deal specifically with two of them; I know my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, will deal with many others. I am particularly concerned with these two items and I have some direct involvement in one of them. The first is the general question of human rights. We have an obligation, in my view, to speak out and affirm human rights irrespective of whom we offend. I say that as a member of the international socialist movement which has frequently been accused of being two-faced with regard to condemning the absence or denial of human rights on the basis that we are loud and clear about repression in places like South Africa and Chile but not loud when it comes to Poland and the Soviet Union.
That may be a criticism that is levelled at some members of the international labour socialist movement but as far as the Labour Party in this country are concerned I want to make the position absolutely clear: we have spoken out against totalitarian repression whether inside the Iron Curtain or elsewhere and we shall continue to do so because we share one of the major values indicated in today's debate by the Minister which is a total commitment to the democratic process. That was clearly seen and underlined in the basic and fundamental position paper proposed at our recent annual conference in Wexford, a place that is not unknown to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We were very well received there—a very friendly people.
