We have one and a quarter hours for the Foreign Affairs Estimate. The Minister has 20 minutes, Fine Gael have 20 minutes, Labour have 20 minutes and the Minister has 15 minutes to reply.
Estimates, 1980. - Vote 47: Foreign Affairs.
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £11,061,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take the estimates for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation together.
The annual estimates debate has by tradition been the occasion for a review of recent and current Irish activity in the field of foreign policy. I do not have the opportunity today to give an exhaustive account of all our activities over the past year, but it would be useful to state briefly the basic aims of our policy and to focus on some major areas of current concern which, in one way or another, affect us all as citizens and are of particular significance at present.
A basic aim of our foreign policy is to work as far as we can towards a more peaceful, stable and just international order. We also want to protect our sovereignty and independence and to promote the economic well-being of our people.
If we are to pursue these broader foreign aims as we should, however, we have a particular need to work for peace and reconciliation within the island of Ireland. I would begin therefore with a reference to the problem of Northern Ireland in so far as it comes within my area of concern as Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Taoiseach has already elaborated the overall objectives of the Government, both in regard to Northern Ireland itself and to the broader issues affecting Anglo-Irish relations. His address to the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis on 16 February and his statement before the Dáil on 29 May set out clearly the Government's continuing preoccupations with Northern Ireland and their commitment to the pursuit of a peaceful, comprehensive and lasting settlement of the problem. Consequently, there is little need for me to go into detail here on the Government's carefully considered approach to the kind of settlement that we desire.
As Minister for Foreign Affairs I have had a series of meetings with British Government Ministers since I assumed responsibility as Minister for Foreign Affairs. On 15 April, I had discussions in Dublin with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Humphrey Atkins. Prior to that, I met the Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, in London on 4 March. These contacts were very useful and constructive, and enabled me to draw attention to the necessity to find a lasting solution to the problem of Northern Ireland on the basis set out by the Taoiseach.
On 21 May I accompanied the Taoiseach to London where he met Prime Minister Thatcher. As a result of that meeting both the Irish and British Governments are now agreed on the wish to develop closer political co-operation between them. It is our hope that through heightened political co-operation our two Governments can create a new framework within which it will be possible to find a way of settling the Northern Ireland problem on a basis of peace and reconciliation in Ireland.
The British Government are fully aware of our view that an expression by them of interest in the ultimate achievement of Irish unity, by agreement and in peace, would open the way to an entirely new situation in which lasting peace would become an attainable reality. Such a declaration would in particular modify the negative effect of the existing British guarantee to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland, a guarantee whose constant unqualified repetition we consider to be a barrier to significant political progress.
A major obstacle to progress towards reconciliation is, however, the continuation of violence. Recourse to violence over the years has not only added to the legacy of human tragedy on this island, it has also intensified the sentiments of hatred and bigotry and has served to undermine the just and legitimate aspiration to eventual Irish unity.
In our desire to alleviate economic and social problems in Northern Ireland and to contribute to progress in particularly disadvantaged regions, we attach special importance to cross-Border co-operation. This is a significant area of my responsibility in respect of which the funds provided for in the Estimates have been maintained at last year's level.
I can report continuing progress in this area. Following the completion in 1977 of the Derry-Donegal report and the recent completion of three other cross-Border studies, namely the Erne Catchment Study, the Newry-Dundalk Study and the Mourne Fishery Study, we have now built up a comprehensive profile of the Border areas. The details and data which are now available as a consequence of these reports will be of considerable use in pursuing a co-ordinated approach to the development of these areas. The creation of a special non-quota section of the European Regional Development Fund under which Irish Border areas North and South will benefit is of particular significance. I am hopeful that these proposals will involve a programme of action in the Border counties in the fields of tourism and artisan activities which can be finalised in the next few months and brought into operation as soon as possible. Aid has also been made available to cross-Border drainage schemes by the EEC specifically in respect of the Ulster Blackwater and the Finn-Lackey.
The support of the British and Irish Governments for cross-Border economic co-operation was endorsed at my meeting in April with the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Mr. Atkins. In the coming months we will be keeping in close liaison with the interested parties in the Border areas and with the authorities in Belfast in the follow-up actions to be taken in the context of these various reports.
The murder of Lord Mountbatten in August last caused a regrettable anti-Irish reflex in the British popular press. Irish people were rightly offended by this outburst of prejudice. However the coverage of Irish affairs in most of the serious British press as well as in the international press, in the past year, was of a quite different quality. It was, on the whole, balanced and fair-minded.
It is worthwhile to remind the House of the distinction between popular news reports of a sensational character which inevitably focus on unfortunate instances of violence, and more serious reporting and editorial comment, which reflects the considered opinions of the newspaper concerned. Last year, despite the publicity accorded to a few violent incidents, editorial comment in the foreign media was in the main reasonable in tone and sympathetic in content to the views and policies of the Government. My Department will continue this year their vigorous efforts to encourage a positive reflection of Irish affairs in the world media.
In addition to contacts with the foreign media my Department and our embassies keep people abroad aware of developments here and aspects of Irish life about which they might not otherwise learn.
Our good standing abroad as a stable, progressive country is important for its own sake as well as being crucial to the success of our promotional work in the fields of investment from abroad, exports and tourism.
A selection of factual material and articles on subjects of interest to people abroad is presented in a monthly publication Ireland Today, which has a foreign circulation of about 17,500, and in Facts about Ireland, an updated edition of which will be available shortly. The publication this year of some further booklets in the Aspects of Ireland series, which gives foreign readers a general introduction to Irish culture, and of other information material is also planned. The lending of films on request by our embassies and the showing of suitable short films on a non-commercial basis to foreign audiences is another useful way of presenting information about Ireland. This year prints of some new films and extra prints of the most popular films already in stock are being purchased.
Support for Irish cultural activities abroad which enhance our prestige is provided from the grant-in-aid for cultural relations. Priority is given to the development of relations with other member states of the European Community, for example through cultural agreements. Agreements already negotiated with Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and Spain will shortly be signed. This year's grant-in-aid of £270,000 includes a special provision of £120,000 for the recent Sense of Ireland festival in London. The impact of that project on the British capital has enhanced the country's stature, North and South, in the eyes of many people there.
In order to give Members of the Oireachtas and the public generally an opportunity to see what is being done in this area it has been decided to resume the practice of presenting to the Oireachtas annual reports of the activities of the Cultural Relations Committee, which advises me about the allocation of funds from the grant-in-aid. Copies of the report for 1979 are now in the Library. I would like to take the opportunity to thank members of the committee for their assistance and in particular to express my appreciation for the excellent work of the outgoing chairman, Dr. Tarlach O'Raifeartaigh, who presided over the committee for seven years.
In the broader international area the world as we enter the decade of the 1980's is an uncertain and insecure place. Internationally we face great political instability and economic uncertainty and stagnation. There is a scarcity of some resources and an insecurity about continuity of supply of some raw materials. Political distrust threatens a new cycle in the arms race and looks like replacing what could have been an era of co-operation and negotiation internationally with a prolonged period of confrontation and perhaps conflict. Every country in the world is affected by these problems and none can escape their effects. It is not possible for a small state like our own to be able to influence the external world decisively by its own actions. But Ireland does not today act in isolation. We face the world in partnership within the European Community and we seek together to confront common problems.
I should like now to deal briefly with some further areas of particular concern to us at present. First, there is Afghanistan. We are all aware that a major crisis has arisen in the south Asian region as a result of the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan in December last. We think it vital that this crisis be managed and controlled and that contacts between the major powers be maintained and used to ease tensions. We believe that every possible effort must be made to avoid conflict and to reduce the dangers of confrontation which could lead to conflict.
At the same time we must be clear in stating our view of what has happened in Afghanistan. The Soviet intervention is a breach of basic principles set out in the United Nations Charter and other international documents which require respect for the independence of every state and preclude intervention by one state in an attempt to dominate another. That the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was not in accord with the wishes of the Afghanistan people is clearly evident from their continuing resistance to the Soviet forces against great odds.
It is our position that all foreign troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan and that there should be an end to all foreign interference in that country so that its people will be free to determine their own future in full independence. Ireland, together with its partners in the Community, has tried for several months now to promote a solution through an arrangement which would allow Afghanistan, by its own decision, to return to its traditional position as a neutral and non-aligned state living in conditions of peace and security with its neighbours.
A second major problem is that in Iran where American diplomats and other American citizens are still being held hostage after more than seven months. We fully respect the rights of the people of Iran but we categorically condemn the holding of these hostages. As the Taoiseach put it, "We hold this action to be inherently wrong and incapable of being justified by any claim of grievances by Iran against the United States. The holding of any hostages is wrong and cruel, and the holding of diplomatic hostages destroys the very basis of civilised contact between nations".
Ireland, through its embassy in Tehran, has taken an active part from the outset in conjunction with other Community countries in diplomatic efforts to secure the release of the hostages. More recently we have joined our partners in a series of measures to apply economic as well as diplomatic pressure on the authorities in Iran. Our aim is to convince them through the means open to us that the continuing breach of the fundamental principles governing relations between states is a matter of deep concern to the whole international community and not merely to the country most directly affected. We would like to be able to resume normal exchanges with Iran. But this will be possible only if Iran for its part respects fully the basic principles of international law and diplomatic relations.
I turn now to a third topic, the broader question of the Middle East. Like many political problems that of the Middle East is a conflict of rights. In the effort to resolve that conflict of rights we believe that certain basic principles must be accepted—for example, that of the non-acquisition of territory by force and the self-determination of peoples. The aim of Ireland and that of the European Community in regard to the Middle East has been the promotion of a negotiated settlement which will guarantee the rights of all states and peoples in the region including that of Israel and of the Palestinian people. Our policy remains firmly based on these principles which we believe apply equally to all the parties concerned. Their acceptance of them is essential to a just, durable and comprehensive settlement of a conflict which is now more than 30 years old in an area of great strategic significance where continuing instability and the danger of a wider conflict could have effects far beyond the region and therefore concern the international community as a whole.
At Venice last week Ireland together with its partners reiterated the two basic principles which I have just enumerated, the right of all states in the region including Israel to security and the need for justice for all the peoples implying recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people. Deputies will be aware that in their efforts to promote such a settlement the European Council decided that the Nine should undertake a range of contacts with all the parties concerned to ascertain their positions in regard to the principles which I have mentioned and which were set out in the declaration issued in Venice on 12-13 June. In the light of these contacts it is the intention of the Nine to decide more specifically on the actions which they can take to contribute in more concrete terms to the achievement of a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East.
In turning to a fourth area of concern, Africa, I think it right to say that the accession to independence of Zimbabwe provided the international community with an example of a settlement to a long drawn out and bitter conflict which was achieved through patience, persistence and good faith in a comprehensive negotiation. I personally had the pleasure and honour of attending the independence celebrations in Zimbabwe. In the period before independence Ireland and the Community encouraged and supported Britain's efforts at achieving a negotiated settlement. We are also ready in whatever way we can to help consolidate independence in Zimbabwe and to help it develop as a stable, just and prosperous multiracial society. We all hope that Zimbabwe will be an example for the resolution of the major remaining problems in Namibia and South Africa where it is plain that the attempt to guarantee the rights of the white minority by the continued violation of fundamental principles and the abridgement of basic human rights threaten Southern Africa with the horror of a racial war. Indeed in recent days it is plain that the continued repression which is an inherent product of the apartheid system is already sharpening conflict in South Africa itself.
I should now like to say something about our activities at the United Nations. Under successive Governments the UN has been a primary forum for the conduct of Irish foreign policy. Our membership of the United Nations gives us an opportunity to maintain and develop our contacts with the wider international community and particularly with the Third World. In addition, in recent years we have been consulting closely with our partners in the European Community on most issues before the UN General Assembly to try to work out common Nine positions with them. The country holding the presidency of the Nine co-ordinates this work at the United Nations and during the recent 34th session of the Assembly this task fell to Ireland. The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs in his capacity as President of the Nine addressed the General Assembly on 25 September last giving Nine views on major world issues. In committee and plenary debates the Irish delegation co-ordinated the Nine in drafting statements and explanations of vote which were then delivered by the Irish delegation. In addition we were frequently required to maintain contact with other groups in the name of the Nine on particular issues. I believe that our delegation carried out this task effectively.
I should mention in the context of our UN membership that on Tuesday last the Security Council renewed for a further six months the mandate of the UN Interim Force in the Lebanon—UNIFIL. I need hardly remind the House of the sacrifices our soldiers have made earlier this year in the Lebanon in the cause of peace. In the course of its most recent resolution adopted earlier this week the Security Council strongly condemned all actions contrary to the provisions of the mandate, and, in particular, continued acts of violence that prevent UNIFIL's fulfilment of the mandate.
The UN Conference on the Law of the Sea is continuing. The conference was convened, as Deputies will be aware, to review, codify and develop the existing international law relating to the sea, to consider new issues related thereto and to deal with the establishment of an equitable international regime for the area of the deep seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. The enormous task which this conference undertook will therefore be appreciated.
It often appears to those who are not following the negotiations closely that nothing is being achieved. However, in reality considerable progress has been made on most of the wide range of issues under discussion and it is probably true to say that a large proportion of the provisions in the negotiating text is virtually agreed. Some issues remain which are the subject of intensive negotiation and these issues must be resolved before the conference can be concluded.
My Department are also actively involved in the negotiations on the delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Ireland and Britain. When agreement could not be reached on this issue we proposed the establishment of an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate in the matter. Britain has now agreed that the matter should be resolved by an ad hoc arbitration tribunal composed of five members.
Our Presidency of the Council of the European Communities saw the acceptance of a package of proposals arising out of the six-year long "Tokyo" round of multilateral trade negotiations. Internally, the presidency sought to facilitate the establishment of a working relationship with the new directly elected Parliament and, of course, was occupied with seeking a solution to the British budgetary problem.
The settlement of the British budgetary problem involves a reduction in the net contribution of the United Kingdom to the Community by an average of about £866 million a year for 1980 and 1981. The Irish contribution to the £866 million will be of the order of £8 million a year. This additional contribution by us must be looked at in the light of our overall position. Recent Commission estimates show net receipts to Ireland from the budget as being of the order of £360 million in 1980. Though we have a comparatively small population, we are the second highest net recipients from the budget, and these receipts will increase in 1981 by a figure which is estimated to be up to 30 per cent.
Turning now to international co-operation for development, and in particular, to our official aid for developing countries, the total amount allocated this year is £16.22 million, which represents an increase of approximately 12 per cent over the amount available last year. This includes large increases in our multilateral aid commitments especially as regards the European Development Fund.
There is the Grant-in-Aid to the Agency for Personal Service Overseas, which provides a necessary link between the voluntary agencies and my Department and which makes a crucial input into many projects.
Perhaps the most significant event this year in relation to our development co-operation programme was the establishment of the National Advisory Council, whose 30 members, drawn from a wide spectrum of Irish society, who represent experience and expertise in many fields, will advise me on issues of development co-operation. It is of crucial importance to involve the many different sectors of society in our development co-operation programme and I am confident that the council will be of invaluable assistance to the Government in this regard.
I would like to refer briefly to the wider context of international economic co-operation because this is an important year for the North-South dialogue and the growing co-operation between developed and developing countries.
Global events may at times seem a little remote from our own national concerns, but it would be naïve to imagine that we can ignore them without consequence. We live in an increasingly interdependent world. The problems all countries face and the opportunities there are for tackling these can be fully appreciated only in a global context. What has become very clear in the past decade is the interlocking nature of the problems and prospects of both developed and developing countries. Neither side can hope to overcome the difficulties it faces on its own. The next few years may be crucial in determining whether or not the international community is capable of responding adequately to what will without doubt be one of the major challenges of the eighties.
I offer my condolences and those of my party to the wife and family of Paul Keating who served this country so well during his entire career.
It is clear that all foreign policy in the past year has been distinguished by monumental blunders and spectacular failures on the part of the present administration. Time does not permit me to go into all the aspects but I have selected a few principal areas on which I will concentrate this morning.
In regard to the Middle East, on Wednesday the Taoiseach referred to the Middle East declaration of the European Summit as being carefully balanced. This is in marked contrast to the Bahrein communiqué issued on behalf of the Government by the Minister for Foreign Affairs last February. That we as a neutral nation with troops in a peace-keeping role in the area should put ourselves so far out on a limb is incomprehensible and raises serious questions as to whether we can afford the luxury of having Deputy Lenihan continue in the Foreign Affairs portfolio speaking on behalf of the nation and causing major damage to our credibility and interests.
It is indeed interesting that in his remarks this morning, when he referred to the Middle East, he did not refer to the Bahrein communiqué and sheltered behind the Venice declaration. I do not know if this indicates a back-tracking on his part but it is important that there should be a clear, national policy in regard to the Middle East, in particular, because of our interests there and because of the lives of our 700 citizens serving in a peace-keeping capacity there.
Such a policy would need some time to expound but it is important that the Minister should bear in mind the fact that any recognition of the PLO there should involve a formal renunciation of links with the IRA, should involve nonacceptance on our part of the Palestinian covenant, which calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and should, in fact, include a guarantee to the territorial integrity and security of the pre-1967 borders of the state of Israel. It should include a special appreciation of the sensitive situation of the city of Jerusalem and, in particular, it should be aimed at strengthening the moderate elements in the Palestinian movement. Unfortunately of late there has been a tendency for the radical elements to take over more control in the direction of policy towards terrorist activities as opposed to diplomatic and political initiatives.
I felt very particularly that the unequivocal recognition by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Bahrein of the PLO gave comfort and support to the radical elements in the Palestinian movement. A further aspect which has to be borne in mind is our situation with Israel. We have a lot of problems with Israel particularly in view of their support for the Haddad militia and in view of the fact that they are not helping in carrying out the mandate in Southern Lebanon. From that point of view I feel very strongly that there is a great need to have an exchange of resident ambassadors between Dublin and Tel Aviv at the present time which would permit the necessary communication to take place between our respective countries.
Another major failure of the present administration is in regard to the Third World. The failure of the Government to honour their commitments to the Third World is both short-sighted and reprehensible. The Minister pleads budgetary constraints and balance of payments problems. The Minister for Finance both in Opposition and in Government gave clear and specific undertakings that despite such considerations our obligations in this regard would be met. In providing for a shortfall of £5 million in the current year the Government have quite simply welched on their commitments. The result will be, apart from the immediate damage caused to various development programmes in developing countries, that the fund of goodwill built up in recent years amongst those nations will be wiped out. We gained considerably in economic terms from being involved in aid programmes. There most certainly is a trade spin-off from aid. Even at this level it is so short-sighted to damage the possibility of progress in that area.
I noted in the Minister's statement the reference to making available £80,000, which will be announced later in the day for emergency relief in regard to Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Afghanistan. Of course, this is only a drop in the ocean and I do not say that this nation can provide a major contribution to the problem. At the same time we can give the lead, but bearing in mind that the Minister's own Estimates provide for a reduction from £500,000 to £200,000 in the area of disaster relief we can see how the Government and the Minister have tied our hands in regard to giving a reasonable lead here. The sum of £80,000 which he mentioned is derisory in regard to the huge problem that exist in Kampuchea, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Afghanistan. In the latter country alone I gather that there is now a total of almost one million refugees fleeing from the Soviet invasion. In Zimbabwe there is the threat of starvation and famine in rural areas before the month of October, in Uganda the removal of Amin and the huge problems that exist now in that war-torn country, and in regard to Kampuchea there is the sickening situation of people being driven from their homeland and the continuing conflict there. I will return to that if time permits.
In regard to the EEC the most notable aspect in recent times was the Taoiseach organising as a propaganda stunt the conference at Dublin Airport on the return of Ministers Lenihan and MacSharry following the conclusion of negotiations on the UK budget contribution and the farm package. Of course he failed to reveal the full facts in his efforts to portray as a shining success what could be regarded as abject failure. To settle the UK budget problem our Government agreed that we would contribute £16 million in ease of the British taxpayer. Have we lost sight of reality when we agree to pay EEC bills for our richer neighbour, this despite the clear prior assurance of the Taoiseach that the settlement would not involve any financial burden for us as the poorest nation in the EEC? The attempt by the Taoiseach in his report on the Venice Summit and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs today to hide the facts in the overall figures of the EEC is ludricuous. We joined the EEC on certain terms. We paid the price for joining. We lost 75,000 industrial jobs because we accepted the regime imposed by the EEC. To suggest that merely because we are now getting our due entitlement under other headings—in some of these we are not—is an excuse for us putting our hands into our pockets and paying to keep the British taxpayer happy about the EEC is ridiculous. Furthermore, the farm package in its net terms is going to mean a net loss of incomes for farmers for the second year in a row of at least 15 per cent. It is bad enough to have failed so bady in representing our interests in Europe, but surely it is adding insult to injury to misrepresent the results in this fashion.
I want to make a few remarks about the Olympics. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan brought a response from the entire free world which response in all cases was positive and definite. Here the Government dithered in an inconsistent and indecisive fashion. Various Ministers swung from clear statements in favour of participation in Moscow to sitting on the fence where they teetered for some time until ultimately the Government at the last moment adopted the Fine Gael policy issued at the start of the year. In the meantime our athletes at home did not know where they stood and again in international circles our credibility suffered.
The complete catalogue of the mismanagement of our foreign policy by the present Government would require a full debate on foreign policy. It is interesting this morning to find the Minister in some difficulty in getting through his own statement because of the shortage of time. It is vital in the interest of the country that we should have a full debate which would permit the Government to present their case fully and to defend themselves against the many legitimate criticisms being made of it and at the same time to permit the Opposition not just to criticise but to present constructive alternatives. The time factors involved in a short discussion here do not permit the delicate and sensitive areas to be explored in the detail which they require. We requested this debate a number of times and it has not been arranged. In general one can only comment in general terms. It appears that, from Rockall to the jettisoning of our claim to an exclusive 50-mile limit, the much-heralded major diplomatic initiative that was to be launched in Northern Ireland and in all other areas, our foreign policy has been in very unsafe and unsure hands since the present administration took office.
In the short time available to me I want to refer to a couple of other areas. I am concerned particularly about the situation in El Salvador at the moment where the continuing depression is something that we as a small nation should be concerned about. It appears also that in the past we have not pursued the policy in regard to condemnation of denial of human rights in a sufficiently definite manner. As a small and neutral nation we are in a unique position to take an initiative in this regard. In regard to El Salvador there is a mass of evidence available of the continuing repression by the regime there. One has to say clearly that this repression is aided by the fact that that regime receives aid and arms from the US Administration. I feel very strongly that in that situation we have a duty to bring home to the US that we do not approve of their continuing to arm and aid the regime in that fashion and that we condemn it utterly and we call on them to discontinue their efforts. I have no doubt that American foreign policy in propping up right-wing repressive regimes is providing an open door for a subsequent left-wing communist regime. To the ordinary person in Cuba the difference under Battista and under Castro is nil. While the US continue with that kind of policy they are only encouraging the setting up of totalitarian communist dictatorships.
Wherever we see breaches of human rights of citizens of any country, no matter what the political hue of the regime practising those denials, we have a duty to condemn. I suggest that we have even a further duty. We could be taking a greater initiative in this whole area of human rights.
There is also the question of areas such as Kampuchea. When there is a great outcry and the news from those areas is flashed on television screens, there is a response from our people. They are encouraged, mainly through the voluntary organisations, to contribute substantially. Indeed, in contrast to the record of the Government in the current year, it is clear that the Irish are open-hearted, sensitive to the problems existing in other areas and willing to contribute what they can. It is important to put on record that we, as a nation, should not be judged solely on the mean and tight fisted policy of the present administration, which does not represent the outlook of our people who when called on are more than generous in their contributions by way of aid to various organisations operating in the Third World.
At the same time there is the difficulty that when the major news stories are taken off the television screens the problem continues and this is particularly relevant in regard to Kampuchea, where the entire race is in danger of extinction. Many refugees from that country are perhaps being forced to return home where very probably what a waits them is torture and death. There must be a continuing recognition of the problems in these areas.
There is also at the moment the problem of South Africa. Indeed, over the last few days we have seen the tactics of the authorities resulting in very many deaths and injuries. This highlights again the continuing injustice in that country, which calls for a response from this country—not a response in monetary terms but a voicing of our opinion at every possible opportunity about the apartheid policies of that nation and the oppressive actions of their regimes. It involves looking at the people who have been courageous enough to stand up to the regime and who are now suffering as a result. One in particular is Nelson Mandela, to whom I referred in this House some months ago, who is now serving the sixteenth year of a life sentence passed on him because of his efforts on behalf of his people. We must continue to remember people like him and to remember that merely making an individual protest is not sufficient. We must continue in a sustained fashion to voice our condemnation of practices such as are being continued in South Africa.
The Deputy has about two minutes to conclude.
In that situation I have not the opportunity of going into many other aspects to which I should like to refer. I shall finish on a personal point which rather highlights the problems of the Third World resulting from the cutbacks today. It comes from a letter from one of our people who went to Kenya in September of last year and is teaching in a school there. She says that the cut in her salary is 20 per cent. Her salary was £80 a month and is now cut back to £50. She wants to know why she, who is trying to do her bit in the Third World and has been willing to accept what here would be considered a very small salary of £80 a month, because of the Government's attitude has to accept such a substantial cut in an already very small salary because of the mean and tightfisted approach of our Government on the question of Third World aid. This is just one example of the very many genuine people who volunteer for service in the Third World and are trying to do their bit in a personal capacity and representing their country in that area and highlights the whole problem. This should not happen.
I conclude by making a last appeal for a rethink. In the name of this nation, let us hold our heads high in regard to the Third World. Let us discharge our commitments and put back now the £5 million that should be additional to these Estimates. The figure should be £21 million and is only £16 million.
Deputy Quinn has 20 minutes.
I understand that I, like the previous two speakers, am constricted in time and will not be able to talk about all the issues concerned, or, indeed, to discuss the issues in the depth that many of them require. Briefly, this must be a review which on reflection will be very inadequate. If I miss out points it will not be through lack of interest but because of shortage of time.
The Labour Party are particularly concerned with the apparent drift of our foreign policy since the change within this present administration of personnel from one Department to another. I say that in front of the Minister, whose personality is well known and liked in this House but who is accountable here purely for his political actions. I say with all seriousness that we are frankly concerned with the way in which our foreign policy in substance and spirit, has been drifting since the internal reshuffle within the present Fianna Fáil government. The position in many instances does not appear to have changed but in the way in which things are presented and pursued —whether in relation to our attitude to the conflict between the superpowers or in relation to commitments to our overseas development co-operation programme—there has undoubtedly been a considerable change in this House in the pursuit of foreign policy.
People may very well say that a small country like Ireland is indulging itself to a certain extent and that Opposition Deputies are indulging themselves to a certain extent in asking questions and demanding what the Minister is doing about this country or that issue. Proportionately, international affairs concern small countries like Ireland very much more than they do large countries. We cannot afford to ignore international affairs. We are at the mercy of international events in a way which does not affect large countries. Economically we already know that interdependence with the rest of the world and politically the profile and structure of the world's economic order is very much determined by the political attitudes adopted by particular countries.
The Labour Party, from its very foundation and certainly from the time that it became a party of this House, under the leadership of Tom Johnson, consistently and courageously pursued a policy of fundamental non-alignment and neutrality. The other two parties, in varying forms, adopted that position at the outset of the Second World War in 1939, and for a variety of reasons have held fast to it, but for reasons which do not necessarily go much deeper than a certain degree of pragmatism. If the Minister is annoyed or concerned as to why so often the question of our position on neutrality is raised in this House it is because in certain issues—and I will come to them specifically—we seem to be moving a way from the fundamental spirit of that position which has the support of the Labour Party and I believe, the wholehearted support of our people. Neutrality is not a question of being morally indifferent to, or morally agnostic about the fundamental issues confronting the world. It is a logical outcome of a state which has striven to obtain its own independence over many years. It would be a total renunciation of our entire struggle for independence if, having gained statehood and independence in our own right, we would turn around and throw in our lot in terms of foreign policy with one bloc or another.
In the next 20 years of the century, the changes in world economic order to be brought about by the pressures, north and south of the economic equator, if not the actual equator, will be such that, unless we pursue vigorously, in concert with like-minded nations within the EEC, within the European community of nations outside the EEC itself and with other countries throughout the world, our capacity to influence events, our position will not then be secure. Our position will be determined largely by how vigorously we pursue a clear-sighted and well-founded foreign policy.
We cannot talk in terms of economic justice of reasonable trading relations with countries of the Third World when there are oppressive regimes within them which are gaining support from either the United States or from the Soviet Union, if we appear to give some kind of consent to that position by virtue of our silence. The process of world history has shown that oppressed peoples do not go a way in the pursuit of justice and that, ultimately, they achieve a degree of independence and liberalisation. We have seen that in all of southern Africa to date.
I was confronted with that particular reality when, at a meeting of EEC observers with the Zanu PF representatives after the Zimbabwe election, a German Christian Democrat asked the Zanu PF representative, Mr. S. Muzenda, what their relations would be with the EEC. His response was: "Gentlemen, we have been fighting a war for the past seven years. It is very nice of you to express an interest in us now, and to be concerned about whom we will be trading with". For that reason, whether it is El Salvador, Namibia, Kampuchea or any other place, the small voice of Ireland, which hopefully will be enhanced in the coming year by a seat on the United Nations Security Council, should not sing silent for fear that we might be out of harmony with our EEC partners, President Carter, Chairman Brezhnev or anybody else.
Ultimately we may become dependent on a large number of other countries like ourselves. It is no longer enough to say that our position on international affairs is well known and that we are respected. The courageous stand of Frank Aiken to the admission of Red China to the United Nations and to the test ban treaty is not so much in evidence now in the United Nations Assembly. Our relations with many Third world countries relate to that period and certainly not to the present. I would like to think we would return to that spirit of independence and neutrality and not hide behind a silence.
The whole question of the North-South dialogue, whether it is within the context of the Brandt Report or the Special Assembly starting on 25 August, is of particular importance to this country. In conjunction with the Benelux countries we have a far greater dependency on trade than any other EEC state. The nature of many of our industries is such that we will be in severe competition with industrialising nations in South-East Asia and in parts of Latin America for certain products. The IDA strategy in relation to attracting certain kinds of industry could be up-ended within five to ten years because of economic development internationally.
We have to be actively and vigorously involved in the question of the North-South dialogue even with the small voice and leverage we have. If we ignore it, saying a small country like Ireland cannot do very much, we do so at our peril. I recognise the limited leverage this Government have as an individual Government and the stronger leverage they have within the Nine. But I do not think the process of EPC, which is useful and constructive, should be allowed to divert us from the need to clearly establish an Irish profile as well as a component profile within the process of EPC. They are not contradictory positions. There are many times when the skills of diplomacy have to be brought to bear in reconciling them but I seem to detect an abandonment of one in favour of the other. If the Minister corrects me on that, I will be more than pleased to accept it.
I would like to refer to a number of issues touched on by the Minister. On the question of the Middle East, the Bahrain statement, the Venice Declaration and the whole sorry, sordid, vicious and horrendous position of the continuous war that has been fought in the Middle East since 1948, I believe Ireland as well as the other EEC countries, has perceptibly moved her position. We moved for one reason—oil. Prior to 1973 nobody was saying the Palestinians had a right to a homeland or to self-determination until the oil producing countries took the energy-short European Community by the neck and extracted the kind of turnaround in spirit that is now taking place. As a result the Israeli people have been driven into a more absolute and determined position, and with some reason.
The Jewish people remember what happened to them the last time there was an international economic crisis. They remember the last time capitalism went through a catharsis and near collapse in 1929 and they became the scapegoat for the so-called economic ills and collapse of a particular country. With all the personal damage that happened to these people in that first holocaust, is it any wonder the Israelis have adopted what I regard as a totally intransigent attitude in certain areas, whether it is in relation to the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people or the settlement on the West Bank?
So long as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the EEC, say the Palestinians have an increasing role or an increasing right—whatever way you put it, the impact is the same in Tel Aviv or in Jerusalem—without telling them that they must amend the covenant and that they cannot have as a basic objective the absolute eradication of the Jewish people and of the state of Israel, how can we expect these people to sit down and discuss this matter? Regrettably there is no counter-balancing evidence in the way we read the document that that kind of request and pressure has been put on the PLO. As recently as six months ago the EI Fatah Organisation met. Why should they change that part of their charter? So far they have been doing very well without amending it.
There are many aspects of the state of Israel which are totally unacceptable but, without making excuses, they have been driven into a position which is now being consolidated by the present approach of the EEC. Many Israelis involved in decision-making remember the last time Europe forgot about the Jews, when people were silent from 1933 on. It is not enough to say Israel has the right to live within secure boundaries. It is essential to state also that no organisation have the right to say one of their objectives is the elimination of another State.
On Afghanistan and the Moscow Olympics, the record makes sad and sorry reading. The Minister's response to questions on 22 February asking whether our athletes would attend the games—in which I was not able to participate unfortunately—are Gilbertian. The record shows this. As far as the chairman of the International Olympic Committee, Lord Killanin, is concerned, meaningful games will take place in Moscow this year. Much fewer than three-quarters of the nations—the figure given by the Minister last February—will be abstaining. The majority of nations will be participating. Despite the assurances and statements made by the Minister in February the Irish Government's advice was that our athletes should not go. In that context Ireland was seen to be part of the western alliance, part of a group of countries participating in one bloc and not in another. We have forfeited the profile of neutrality and independence which we sought for so many years to maintain.
I welcome the Minister's statement in regard to Iran and we fully support the efforts being made to try to restore some degree of international contact with the State of Iran. The way in which the whole Iranian people rose against the Shah and the repressive regime which was backed substantially in every conceivable way by the US, had unfortunate consequences which have been compounded by the reality of a presidential election in the US. International relations and the Iranian position in regard to the hostages have not been helped by the action President Carter has taken, purely for domestic opinion poll requirements. International security and the well-being of our people have been put at risk because of the domestic political considerations of the President of the United States. We will lose our profile of independence unless we say that the position of the hostages is untenable but that the United States should not aggravate the situation by such means as the doomed military raid. We can say this to the United Nations without losing their confidence and without becoming in any way anti-American.
I will conclude by dealing with the question of development co-operation and the extension of the North-South dialogue. The Government decision to cut back on all Government spending was badly handled by the Minister in relation to the bilateral aid programme. I would question whether there was any fight to defend it. The bilateral aid programme was thrown to the wolves and the Minister is no amateur or novice in dealing with Government Estimates which from time to time, because of budgetary constraints, have to be cut down. When an Act dealing with public information is passed the records will show that there was only a minimal defence of the bilateral aid programme, if there was such a defence at all. The effect of the abandonment of the bilateral aid programme is that our credibility in certain countries, particularly Tanzania, is open to question. We now have a development co-operation officer there who does not know what funds will be available except in regard to one rural development project which may start in the second half of this year.
The Labour Party welcomed the commitment given in opposition by the then Deputy O'Kennedy to the bilateral aid programme and the overall commitment in budgetary terms to our development co-operation programme. When the last Government went through a severe budgetary crisis caused by the earlier oil crisis there was the same sort of raid on development co-operation, for the simple reason that there is no constituency involved in this. However, the public outcry with which the Minister has now been confronted, regrettably only in the newspapers, is evidence that there is support for our aid programme.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that the resources needed by APSO will be made available and that the cut-back will now be staved off.
I have met the executive of APSO and they have been reassured that I will be in a position to work within the ambit of the overall allocation in the area of overseas development assistance to ensure that existing bilateral commitments and the personal service activities of APSO will be maintained. I have assured the House that the important aspect in the budget is the overall figure of £16.23 million which is an increase of 12 per cent on the allocation for last year. By using commonsense and a flexible approach there could be movement of funds within the various areas under the umbrella of the total allocation so that existing commitments will be met. By reason of budgetary constraints I freely admit that we will not be able to embark on new projects in the current year, but we will maintain existing projects and meet existing commitments. It is important to remember that there has been an increase of 12 per cent in the total aid programme.
The foreign policy of a small country must be in accordance with the general principle of enlightened self-interest. We must seek to ensure as far as possible that an enlightened approach and the self-interest of the nation coincide and that balance is maintained. That has been our consistent approach within the European Economic Community. By way of referendum the Irish people decided by an overwhelming majority to join the EEC and that decision has been proved right. The essence of our approach within the Community is to make sure that the institutions work as effectively as possible. That must be our overriding concern as a substantial net beneficiary of the Community in practical terms. It is in the interests of the world as a whole that the Community should function in a sensible and constructive manner. The countries of Europe which have been ravaged by wars over the centuries have now embarked on this totally new experiment and it is very important that it should succeed. It is especially important for Ireland since we are net beneficiaries in the financial sense. As I said in my opening remarks it is estimated that we will benefit to the extent of approximately £360 million in net financial terms in the current year, 1980, and indications are that there will be an increase of approximately 30 per cent on that figure for 1981.
Therefore, it is important for us that Community institutions work. The nearest that Community institutions have come to a breakdown has been in recent months arising out of the controversy over the British contribution to the budget. We saw it as being of paramount interest to us to secure a resolution of that matter. We played our part in ensuring that it was brought to a successful conclusion recently. In our view the fact that the resolution of the matter resulted in Ireland having to pay a small additional sum—in the current year of approximately £7 million and next year in the region of £9 million, making a total of approximately £16 million over two years—was a very small price to pay in respect of a country benefiting to the extent of £360 million in the current year, and as part of a package involving £75 million in agricultural aids along with additional funds from a west of Ireland package, arising out of the resolution of the sheep meat controversy and also the unlocking of the non-quota section of regional fund aid. Altogether these would bring in, in approximate terms, additional benefits of £100 million to us in the current year. Therefore, side by side with resolving the controversy that tended to wreck the Community and its institutions—and was on the way to doing that—we reaped substantial financial gains. That is what I mean by pursuing a policy of enlightened self-interest.
Similarly throughout the rest of our foreign policy areas we have followed a policy along those lines. In regard to the Middle East, which has been mentioned here, obviously it is right and proper, from the enlightened point of view, that there be peace in the Middle East. If there is not peace in the Middle East we are tending towards a world war situation. Let us be blunt and frank about it: it is the most dangerous area at present right around the globe in terms of a potential, serious war situation. Therefore, from the enlightened point of view, it is essential to secure peace there by way of a negotiated peace settlement. This means sitting people around a table as they represent nations and peoples. This means getting the PLO around the table. This means getting the Israelis around the table. This means getting the big powers around the table. This means ensuring that a negotiated peace settlement is hammered out that recognises the essential integrity of Israel as a State within the boundaries of Israel as they existed prior to 1967. This involves recognising the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the right of the Palestinian people to be settled within boundaries within which they can grow and develop as a State themselves. This envisages the right of Jordan to continue to exist as a State, the right of the Lebanon, the right of Syria, Iraq and Egypt, all of the countries involved in the Middle East, to exist as a State—such a peace settlement to be ensured and agreed to by the big powers.
That is the enlightened approach and is precisely our approach to the matter. What I said in Bahrain does not differ one whit from what has been said by the President of France, what has been said by the Chancellor of West Germany, what has been said by all of the other leaders in Europe, and what was agreed to in Venice last week by the Leaders of Europe gathered together. Again there is a coincidence here—which I regard as fundamental to diplomacy, as I mentioned earlier—between enlightenment and national self-interest. It is also in our national self-interest that there be peace in the Middle East, that there be trade and commerce between the Middle East, Ireland and Western Europe generally. It is right and proper also from the practical point of view that there be the exchange between Europe and the Middle East involving Europe's export of technology, expertise and goods to the Middle East, and the Middle East itself exporting oil and whatever goods it may have in a proper, balanced and sensible way to Western Europe. There is a mutual identity of interest in the development of trade and commerce at every level, from the practical to the service, to the technology level. There is an identity between self-interest as far as Europe is concerned, as far as Ireland is concerned and the enlightened approach at the same time. Again that is what diplomacy must endeavour to achieve. Similarly in regard to Afghanistan—and this is the Community attitude to which we fully subscribe—it is essential to ensure a state of neutrality in Afghanistan, to ensure that the Russians withdraw, that there be agreement by the powers to guarantee a neutral Afghanistan, unaligned and free from any of the power bloc associations. Again that is in the interest of Afghanistan and of the rest of the world.
I have been asked about our associations with and attitudes towards countries where dictatorships exist. Unfortunately in the world—and the world is a difficult place in which to live—it is a fact of life that the great majority of countries at present are either Right Wing or Left Wing dictatorships. Unfortunately we have to live in a world of that kind. Whether it be Soviet Russia on the one hand or EI Salvador on the other all of these dictatorships exist and function as viable States. However we deplore the type of government or administration, we have to work with them within the United Nations; we have to do business with them in trade and commerce and, in some cases we have to recognise them from the point of view of diplomacy. It is important to remember that. We just cannot go around the world wearing the conscience of the world on our sleeve. We have to do practical business with these people. The only Community to which we do belong, thankfully, is the EEC in which every single country is a working parliamentary democracy. To that extent we are aligned, within that Community, with people of like-minded philosophies, psychologists and a like-minded approach to a way of life.
I should like to emphasise that as far as our approach to Northern Ireland is concerned, we will continue a policy that seeks to promote and emphasise the mutual self-interest of Ireland, Britain and Northern Ireland in the settlement of this matter. Again this amounts to an identity between self-interest and enlightenment. It is right and proper that this problem be settled from the point of view of the world at large, from the point of view of establishing peace in this island. It is also in the mutual self-interest of both of these islands that this matter be settled, to remove this incubus that is frustrating trade, commerce and economic development, to remove this incubus that is damaging not just Britain and Ireland but the whole of Western Europe and North America by reason of the strategic significance of the island of Ireland where it is located in the Atlantic. Here again I want to emphasise that as far as the British Government, the people of Northern Ireland and ourselves are concerned, to look at this in a practical way is now the imperative of our time, to look at this in a practical way as far as the self-interest of the peoples of these islands are concerned because there is far more that unites us than divides us within these two islands as a whole. Looked at with that attitude and in that practical way it does not make sense to continue this barrier across this island that continues to cause troubles, discord, loss of life, loss of property, a continuing haemorrhage, draining away financial resources as far as the peoples of the two islands are concerned.
As regards what I have outlined in the various areas with which foreign affairs is concerned, I have tried to demonstrate adherence by me to policies of enlightenment and self-interest, trying to ensure a balance in which both can be identified and pursued in a coherent manner.
Vote put and agreed to.