Earlier I had been dealing with some general points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by other speakers, points, one might say, of principle, rather than being related to the performance of Senator Dooge in the past three-and-a-half months. Before coming to that latter question there is one other point I should like to make. I note the argument being put forward regarding the importance of a Minister for Foreign Affairs attending clinics regularly and dealing with the problems of his constituents as an exercise in bringing him down to earth. I see a certain value in that: such activity brought me down to earth very much on returning from Brussels and attending at clinics in Ringsend or Donnybrook. However, I do not regard it as a vital element of foreign policy making and I should only like to speculate as to why Fianna Fáil did not consider it important in regard to the offices of Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and of Minister for Agriculture when they appointed Senators to these posts. One would have thought that these were areas of activity in respect of which constituency experience would be more relevant than in the case of foreign affairs. Therefore, if there is anything in the Fianna Fáil argument, and I do not think there is, it is not for that party to put forward such argument.
The only other general comment I wish to make is that I regret the dismissal from the other side of the House of the measures that the Government have taken to encourage movement between North and South, moves which we have pointed out as small but helpful. Such dismissal comes very badly from a party who in Government did nothing to encourage movement between North and South and who effectively terminated political contact with the Unionists in Northern Ireland for a period of about two-and-a-half years. They attack us now for trying to open up contact but I am not prepared to accept that criticism. Neither the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism nor myself have suggested that the measures taken are of major significance but anything we can do, however small, to encourage contact must be done.
I should like to turn now to the specific criticisms of Senator Dooge in regard to two issues — the question of what he said at the UN regarding Northern Ireland and the question of EPC, to which I shall address myself at some length in view of the statements made by Deputy Lenihan and the fact that the record in regard to his performance is so totally at variance with the statements he has made.
Regarding what Senator Dooge said at the UN, the quotations used by Deputy Lenihan were deliberately selective to the point of distortion. For example, there was an omission in regard to what Senator Dooge said to the UN Assembly about the origins of this problem and about the division of our island 60 years ago. Deputy Lenihan omitted to tell us that the Senator went on to say that it was in this area, set up 60 years ago in the circumstances he had described, that the Unionists who were a minority on the island then became a local majority but that there was also a substantial minority who strongly opposed the settlement which made them a minority within Northern Ireland, people who aspired to the unification of the entire island. Senator Dooge went on to say that ever since the result has been a divided community in that part of the country in which political identity and loyalty were always the basic issues in democratic elections there and where violence has flared up at frequent intervals. He raised the question also of what the future political structure should be in the island and he posed the question of what future political structures would be necessary within Northern Ireland and between North and South, looking forward to the steps that might be taken in the future to resolve a problem created 60 years ago.
To quote from the Senator's speech while omitting these references and to accuse him of not dealing with the problem of the unity of Ireland is to carry matters to a degree of distortion which is unusual even across the floor of this House.
There is a misquotation also because Deputy Lenihan said that Senator Dooge had told the UN that he did not see this problem as a colonial problem. What he said was that historians may argue as to whether the problem of Northern Ireland was in its origin a colonial one, that the Government here do not approach the issue in that way, that we do not see it as a matter of a disputed territory or a claim of some kind by the people of the South on Northern Ireland. In addition, in other speeches in the US Senator Dooge dealt with this question of Irish unity. For example, in a widely publicised speech to a prestigious group of Irish-American editors and journalists he said that our ultimate goal must be to translate into reality this guiding vision of an Irish people united beyond all strife in a generous acceptance of all our traditions, united in an Ireland which all Irish people can consider proudly and unquestionably their own.
Can this be construed as lukewarm or inadequate? Such words have been used about it. He also made other references. On 6 October in Washington he pointed out the two paths to the unity of Ireland, one through peace and one through violence. The only path is that through peaceful means. I do not think that the party opposite would contest that. When he spoke in the Seanad on 8 October he called for honesty in our discussions on the Northern Ireland issue, a call which has not been answered fully. To accuse him of failure in his duty by using particular worn catchphrases is hypocritical. A reading of any of his statements should make clear his deep commitment to bringing reconciliation and unity to our people.
I want to say several things about EPC. First of all, on the general issue of neutrality which has been raised in this House by several Deputies, there is a distinction between the Fianna Fáil Party and the parties on this side of the House. I do not want to overstress this but it is fair that we should be aware of it. The Fianna Fáil Party since 1970 have taken a position with regard to defence in relation to the Community which was never expressed or taken up by the previous Coalition Government nor has it been nor will it be by this Government. This was expressed by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, on 21 May 1970 when he said: "We will as members of the Community be prepared to assist if necessary with defence". He said also: "As the Community evolves towards political objectives we must be prepared to play a part in this respect". The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Kennedy, speaking in the Dáil on 23 November 1978, referred me, when I questioned him on what he had said on this subject when he had echoed these words, to what he described as a formulation of the former Taoiseach Deputy Lemass, in relation to this, namely, that if the occasion arose we would face our responsibilities as a member of the Community if we were under attack. That formulation in relation to the Community as it is at present has been used only by the Fianna Fáil Governments before and after the previous Coalition. At no period in Coalition did I or any other Minister or Taoiseach ever use such words. There is a difference in this respect with regard to the existing situation between us in that we have been careful not to use words of commitment of that kind. I do not want to go beyond that or make a major issue of it, but for the other side of the House to criticise us in this respect when they have gone beyond the position adopted by the party on this side of the House and done so over a period of a decade on a number of occasions is trying to mislead the House with respect to the true position.
When we joined the EEC, the intergovernmental process with regard to EPC was under way and involved consultations about foreign policy with a view to seeing whether the countries of the Community could arrive at a common position. I found this an invaluable process because it gave this country the opportunity of an input into foreign policy-making in disproportion to our size and enabled us to put forward the views which in many cases certainly were not those of the majority and in some instances might not be held by more than one or two other countries. I believe that this experience was shared by both of our Governments. The input of successive Governments — I will not distinguish between them in this respect and the party on the opposite side of the House —in regard to certain issues like Namibia and Zimbabwe — has been significant. I was told when in opposition by a very senior British source that if it had not been for the consistent support in European co-operation we gave in government — and which was given by our successors in government when Deputy O'Kennedy was Minister for Foreign Affairs — to the successive British Foreign Secretaries in opposing pressures within the UK for an internal settlement without the Patriotic Front, it would have been more difficult for successive British Foreign Secretaries to withstand pressures within the UK for an internal settlement. This is a testimony to the kind of input a small country can bring to bear if it is consistent in its approach and endeavours to prick the conscience of other countries. I am not saying that we did it on our own. The other countries in the Community were concerned also that we should not make a serious mistake here, but the Irish input was significant and acknowledged to me privately by a senior British politician as having been so. The joint input of our successive Governments on the Namibia question has been constructive also in endeavouring to ensure that the contact group carry out their mission in the full spirit of the policy of the Nine on this issue and our vigilance in that area has been a helpful, constructive and progressive element.
The position that we in Government took up on the Middle East from the time we became involved in EPC which was carried on by our successors — perhaps carried a little further than prudence would suggest by Deputy Lenihan in Bahrain — was constructive. We, with France and Italy, were the only country to recognise in 1973 that this problem could not be resolved unless, in addition to ensuring the security of the state of Israel, an attempt was made to deal with the Palestinian question not as a refugee problem but as a problem of securing also a homeland for the Palestinian people. The position we took up on that in 1973 was shared by only two other members. By the time the Government changed in 1977 others had come round to our point of view and our consistent position there helped the evolution of foreign policy in that area. Moreover, in regard to other areas such as disarmament issues, Third World issues and colonialism, we took up positions in the UN which diverged from those of our partners. That is to say that where we could find ourselves in agreement with our partners we have not gone along with them but have sustained our position in the belief that the position we have taken up is one which they eventually come to join us in holding, as was the case in regard to the Middle East. This has led us on a number of occasions to voting in the UN with the support of only one other member of the Nine, as the Community was until recently, and differently from the other seven members. Sometimes it was the Netherlands, sometimes Denmark. Our record here is good. When we have a conscientious position not shared by other member states we retain our position because we are anxious for others to share our view. We seek to put that view forward and achieve shared positions amongst the Nine. That process, therefore, has been constructive and has involved the question of the political aspects of security from time to time.
One of these where the input of the Community as a whole, ourselves amongst them, has been constructive was in relation to the Helsinki Agreement discussions that went on from 1973 to 1975 when the agreement was signed. The centre of gravity of policy formulation amongst the western members of the 35 European states taking part in that conference was within the Nine in Euro- pean political co-operation and not, as it might well have been, in NATO. The fact that the western position evolved from discussions amongst the Nine, leading to discussions with other countries including the various neutral states in western Europe—which, of course, though neutral militarily, share our concern for security and the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe—indicated a constructive process. We were happy to participate in that with the other members of the Nine and with the other countries of Western Europe including the neutrals. That these discussions involved matters such as confidence-building measures, observation of manoeuvres and conditions under which manoeuvres on either side could be observed, that that type of discussion on political aspects of security, involved in this instance the other neutral countries in Europe, is constructive. The fact that discussions within EPC have involved the political aspect of security has been the case since we joined and has been constructive. We in Government sought always to ensure that we did not come under any pressure during that period. We were vigilant to ensure that this process would never go beyond the political aspects of security into the military aspect, although occasionally I recall Ministers speaking as if they were at a NATO meeting and I had to chide them and remind them that they were not. They were forgetting where they were and speaking as if everybody present was a member of the Alliance. I never failed to remind them where they were, that we were not all members of the Alliance and that we were discussing political issues as members of the Nine. That process caused us no problems at that period; we maintained our position without difficulty and, it has to be said, without pressure.
However, there have been developments recently which have threatened some modification of that. They arise, in the first instance, from an initiative by the German Foreign Minister, Herr Genscher, and have led to matters to which Deputy Lenihan has made reference in this House. Deputy Lenihan behaved improperly in showing to a newspaper a confidential document about foreign affairs covered by the Official Secrets Act and dealing with a matter of current political concern. That is a bad precedent and one which should not have been set. It is all the more undesirable because the Minister proceeded to use that document as a basis for misleading the journalists concerned——
