Vol. 352 No. 3
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £20,243,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1984, 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.
I apologise for the absence of my colleague the Minister, Deputy Barry, who is detained at Fontainebleau. In the circumstances, he has asked me to deliver his speech on the Estimates on his behalf. With the permission of the Chair, I propose that we debate the Estimates for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation together. I understand that the Vote in respect of International Co-operation has to be moved separately and subsequently.
It is agreed that the two Votes be debated together and moved separately.
The sum proposed for the Vote for Foreign Affairs is £20,243,000. Most of this provision is required for the salaries of staff at headquarters and at 39 missions and offices abroad. Provision is also included for travelling expenses and communications and Post Office services. As is customary in this Vote, provisions are also included for repatriation and maintenance of Irish citizens who get into difficulties abroad, for cultural and information services and for North-South and Anglo-Irish Co-operation.
The provision for Appropriations-in-Aid is considerably reduced this year as it has been decided to bring passport and other consular receipts, which are estimated in 1984 at £3.1 million to credit as Exchequer extra receipts.
The provision in the Vote for Foreign Affairs for 1984 includes a sum of £638,000 arising from our Presidency of the European Community in the second half of this year. This special provision is necessary to provide for additional staff and also for increased travel and communications expenses. Excluding the Presidency provision the gross Vote for Foreign Affairs for 1984 represents an increase of 11 per cent over last year.
In the period immediately before us, our foreign policy will necessarily find its main expression through our Presidency of the European Community. We shall have to deal with the internal problems of the Community and with Europe's relationship, both political and economic with the wider world of which it forms a part. Before dealing with the internal and external economic problems and relationships of the Community, I should like to review briefly some of the main political problems in the wider world. It will be our duty, in the next six months, in European Political Co-operation, to guide the efforts of the Ten member states to contribute to a solution of those problems.
The most basic political reality throughout the second half of this century has been the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. The peace of our world depends on the stability and the basic health of that relationship. The enormous power of these countries makes it inevitable that the prime problem is always one of the management of rivalries and tensions between them. It is only realistic to say that the present moment is one of particular uncertainty and perhaps even danger. Significant additional deployment in Europe of weapons of mass destruction is under way on both sides and the negotiations between the super powers on both intermediate range and strategic nuclear weapons have been suspended. At the same time, the advance of high technology has reached the point where a new generation of anti-ballistic missile and anti-satellite weaponry, and a new field of military rivalry in outer space, are coming within the range of the possible. We are faced, therefore, with major potential instability both in relation to existing military forces and to future possibilities. It is vital that dialogue between the super powers on all of these matters should be resumed at the earliest possible moment. In this connection let me say that I trust that the opening signalled in his speech in this Chamber by President Reagan, aimed at making progress in the Conference on Disarmament in Europe at Stockholm, will evoke a positive response on the part of the Soviet Union and its allies. During our Presidency of European Political Co-operation, we shall do our utmost to help bring to bear the influence of the Ten to this end.
It should not be necessary for me, on each occasion on which I speak about Irish foreign policy, to reiterate the Government's commitment to Irish neutrality: that commitment is set out in the Programme for Government adopted in December 1982 and has been repeated on numerous occasions by me and other members of the Government. However, one continually hears suggestions that our membership of the European Community is eroding our neutrality, that in some way we are going to be duped or forced against our will into a military alliance, because of our association with countries who are themselves already members of an alliance. Let me say plainly that this is a myth.
It is equally unreal, if not indeed deliberately disingenuous, to insinuate that efforts are under way aimed at transforming the European Community and the Ten into an alliance. On the contrary, the very fact that some of the European members of the NATO alliance, who are also members of the Community, are engaged in efforts to revitalise the Western European Union (WEU), a seven-member military alliance closely linked with NATO, is precisely because of the clear limitations and constraints on security and defence co-operation within the Ten and the Community. Not only are binding defence commitments, which are the essence of an alliance, specifically excluded from the Community and European Political Co-operation, but so also is even the discussion of operational defence questions appropriate to an alliance. No change can be made in this state of affairs without the unanimous agreement of all Ten member states. That consent will not be forthcoming from the Irish Government.
There are two regional conflicts of particular intensity in the world, on which I foresee that our attention and that of our partners in European Political Co-operation will be focused during the coming months: I refer to the Middle East and Central America. The basic problem of achieving self-determination for the Palestinian people, as well as recognition and security for Israel within her own borders, remains unresolved. I hope that it will not be too long before there is a practical recognition by all interested parties that true peace will never come to that area of the world until these problems are dealt with. On a national basis, our practical commitment to peace and stability in the area is most clearly expressed through the continued involvement of our Army with the United Nations Force in Lebanon. I hope that the Lebanese people will in the near future find it possible finally to reconcile their internal differences, and, free from the pressure of external forces, rebuild with renewed energy their shattered country.
The conflict of most immediate concern in the Middle East is the war between Iran and Iraq, which has lasted now for almost four years, with enormous loss of life and destruction of economic resources. The ten Community countries have on a number of occasions called for a ceasefire, withdrawal to internationally recognised frontiers and a negotiated settlement, but these and other appeals of the international community have so far been without effect. Recent attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf have given rise to fears of a possible widening of this terrible conflict. I hope that it is not too fanciful, on the other hand, to see in the recent agreement by the two belligerents to cease attacks on civilian targets in each other's territory the beginnings of a recognition on both sides that this war can do nothing for either the Iranian or the Iraqi people but increase their misery. The Government have been glad, these past few days, to respond to the UN Secretary General's request for military observers to monitor the implementation of the new agreement.
The Taoiseach and his nine colleagues at the European Council in Stuttgart in June 1983 expressed their conviction "that the problems of Central America cannot be solved by military means but only by a political solution springing from the region itself and respecting the principles of non-interference and inviolability of frontiers". That quotation expresses well the essence of the Irish Government's attitude to the continuing conflict in that region. The basic cause of the conflict is the abuse of human rights and economic and social injustice by forces indigenous to the region; the solution is therefore one of social and economic reform to be brought about also by indigenous forces. Any attempted solution which relies primarily on military force can only worsen the situation: what is needed, above all else, is a strengthening of all those Central Americans who are prepared to work for a significant improvement in the conditions of life of their people. Only through social and economic reforms brought about by patriotic and compassionate men and women acting in their own countries and for their own countrymen, can an end be brought to the conflicts which have for so long caused so much suffering in Central America.
I am hopeful that the recent elections in El Salvador and the forthcoming elections in Nicaragua will both, in their different ways, contribute to political progress. Deputies may be aware that President Monge of Costa Rica has recently issued an invitation on behalf of his country and the other nations of Central America to the ten Foreign Ministers of the European Community to meet them in Costa Rica in the autumn to discuss ways and means of strengthening the economic and political links between Europe and Central America. The Ministers of the Ten have gladly accepted this invitation, and I look forward to the meeting as a particular opportunity for the Ten to re-affirm their commitment to the peaceful development of Central America. It is my hope that the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora countries will also be present at the meeting as Ireland, and indeed other members of the Ten, have for some time seen the sustained efforts of the Contadora group to promote peaceful evolution in the region as a particular cause for hope.
Another essential element of global stability and peace is the maintenance of a relationship of mutual confidence between developed and developing countries based on a recognition of shared interests as well as considerations of international equity and fair play.
The recent strong indications of economic recovery throughout the industrialised world give grounds for hope that Third World countries will now also begin to free themselves from the effects of the recession. On the other hand, the problem of debt in these countries will remain critical for several years more. In some regions, notably Latin America, the problem of debt has assumed very worrying proportions, with the crushing burden of debt servicing made unbearable by the strength of the dollar and continually rising interest rates. The recent London Economic Summit has also acknowledged the seriousness of these problems by setting out a strategy to deal with debt. Indeed more than half of its communique has been devoted to North-South issues, with economic interdependence as the central theme. While I welcome the recognition at the Summit of the economic interdependence not only of countries, both developed and developing, but also of problems and issues, much more remains to be done if the world economic recovery is to be safeguarded and maintained.
On 1 July Ireland assumes, for the third time, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities. During our six months in office it is our intention to exert the maximum endeavour to ensure the effective and smooth functioning of Community business. A Presidency is generally judged on its ability to get things done, and we approach our third term with some confidence in that our record in 1975 and 1979 is good. These Presidencies were considered within the Community to have been well run and successful and could also have been said to have won respect and goodwill for Ireland as a responsible and committed member of the Community. In the effort which we propose to make on this occasion we hope to build upon that goodwill.
While our approach to the forthcoming Presidency will, in large part, be based on our past experiences there will be responsibilities and tasks devolving upon the Presidency this time which have not been encountered in Ireland's previous Presidencies. These responsibilities and tasks will be of considerable importance.
We are taking over the Presidency at a time both of great challenge and of great opportunity for Europe. After twelve months of difficult — indeed agonisingly difficult — negotiations, the Community achieved a decisive breakthrough this afternoon. The Taoiseach will be reporting in detail on the substance of the European Council later in the week. It is sufficient for me, therefore, to state today that in my view this historic breakthrough opens the way to what the Stuttgart declaration called 12 months ago the relaunching of Europe. The Community is on the move again. Our task as the incoming Presidency will be, over the coming six months, to build on today's agreement and, where necessary, to give it the appropriate legal form. We must, at the same time, take advantage of the Fontainebleau agreement to move the Community into a higher, more relevant and more responsible gear. The Community must once again become the motor of dynamic charge and development in Europe, especially in areas of primary economic and social priorities for our peoples.
The Council also reiterated that 30 September next should be the target date for the conclusion of negotiation on the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community. We, as the incoming Presidency, fully accept that aim and are, at present, putting together a timetable of work to meet the deadline. We do not underestimate the difficulties. However, the conclusions of these negotiations during the Irish Presidency is one of the major goals we have set ourselves. It will be no fault of ours if this is not achieved. We have, of course, our own difficulties in relation to enlargement particularly in the fisheries sector. During our Presidency our duty is to look to the interests of the Community as a whole, those Ministers and officials who will be representing Ireland as a national delegation will ensure that Irish interests are properly served over the coming six months.
In the various preparatory meetings we have held to establish our objectives and priorities for the Presidency, we have impressed upon our partners the importance we attach to the Community responding effectively to the appalling problem of unemployment. The Taoiseach and my colleagues in Government have made clear our view that it is time for the Community to realise its potential in terms of its economic strength and for member states to act in a more coherent fashion in facing the unemployment situation in Europe. If the largest trading block in the world fails to demonstrate, through concerted action, its concern to tackle unemployment, there will be many who will question the relevance of its existence. The European Economic Community set itself many laudable aims in the Treaty. It must move to fulfil them.
For this reason we will be putting the view to the other member states and the Commission that a review of economic policies may be necessary in order to assess their appropriateness in the context of the employment situation in the Community. A better co-ordination of the economic policies of the member states could increase the margin of manoeuvre of the Community as a whole. We, as Presidency, hope to explore with the Commission methods of harnessing more effectively the collective strengths of the individual economies in order to strengthen growth and employment. We will be pursuing progress with the utmost vigour on all the proposals put to the Council by the Commission which have a bearing on the employment situation.
With a view to finalising our work programme, I shall be discussing the objectives of our Presidency in detail with the Commission early next month.
As regards the development of new Community policies — an area to which successive European Councils have given the highest priority — we will be actively seeking to ensure that the existing momentum is not alone maintained but is considerably accelerated. The areas in question — including telecommunication, bio-technology, data processing, the internal market, energy and the environment — are central to the Community's development as a cohesive economic force. Concrete action is long overdue at the European level in all these areas.
In the agricultural area, the major issues which will arise over the coming six months include the question of a new regime for agricultural structures, the surplus situation in the wine market and new measures under the olive oil regime. In this context, however, I believe it would be appropriate to refer briefly to the very fundamental and highly sensitive negotiations on the super-levy which took place earlier this year. At the conclusion of those negotiations, as Deputies are aware, we had secured a basic entitlement of our 1983 level of deliveries plus 4.6 per cent, with a guarantee that this quantity could not be reduced. Moreover, we were given priority in the division of any quantities which become available in future years.
In accepting this final compromise, we were conscious of how far we had advanced from the original Commission proposal which would have resulted in a cutback of over 13 per cent on our 1983 level and prevented all possibility of improvement in the future. We are also acutely aware of the impossibility of getting further concessions from our partners, most of whom were themselves having to settle for substantial cutbacks in production. The strong reaction to these cutbacks in a number of our partner countries have recently been seen almost on a daily basis. In these circumstances, I believe that any objective and fair analysis would accept that a settlement which gives us the right to expand this year at a rate similar to our average over the past decade, and which holds out the possibility of further increases in the future, was a very major achievement indeed. May I say also that I am grateful to our partners for the understanding of, and solidarity with, our case which they showed during our negotiations.
Good relations with the newly-elected European Parliament will be of immense value in our conduct of the Presidency. Most recently we have witnessed an exercise in collective democracy in Europe, unique in the world, and while there may be some disappointment about the numbers participating in that exercise, the other institutions of the Community must take account of the views of those directly chosen by the people of Europe to represent them. The Taoiseach will be speaking to the Parliament on 25 July when he will also report, in his capacity as President-in-Office of the European Council, on the Fontainebleau Summit. The following day my colleague will have the honour of speaking to the Parliament on the Presidency work programme. All my colleagues who will be presiding over the Council are aware of the role of the Parliament. They are prepared to devote all the time and effort necessary for ensuring a harmonious and fruitful relationship between all the institutions. In this regard, we look forward to the fullest discussion and consideration at Community level of the recent proposals of the European Parliament for fundamental institutional change in the Community. This is a most important initiative.
We shall be paying close attention, during the Presidency, to the Community's relations with our major trading partners. We, in Ireland, with our small open economy and dependence on trade, are acutely aware of the necessity of avoiding the traps of protectionism and "beggar-my-neighbour" policies. The Taoiseach assured the President of the United States, during his recent visit here, of our intention to give priority to the resolution of problems between the Community and the US. The close relations and open channels of communication we enjoy with the US will be at the disposal of the Community during our term of office.
The co-operation which the European Community maintains with developing countries constitutes an essential aspect of its external relations. An important task which is likely to fall to us during the Presidency will be to bring the negotiations for the next ACP-EEC Convention, which provides a contractual framework for the Community's links with 64 African, Caribbean and Pacific States, to a successful conclusion. It is now almost ten years since the first Lomé convention was signed under the first Irish Presidency. In that time the economic recession has had a very serious effect on the economies of the developing countries, particularly the least developed among them. These countries have witnessed a major deterioration in their terms of trade as a result of falling commodity prices and rising interest rates which in turn has seen the emergence of a scale of indebtedness among developing countries to whose alarming proportions I have already referred. In such drastic circumstances, the wealthier nations of the world have a responsibility to provide what assistance they can to encourage developing countries to strive towards more realistic development goals. That is what the Community is attempting to do in the context of the next ACP-EEC Convention. Both sides in the negotiations can agree that the aim of the convention should be on self-reliant, self-sufficient development, notably in the agricultural sector, where the emphasis has been placed on the need to achieve self-sufficiency in food. The Convention, however, covers a broad range of measures in the areas of trade, industry, mining and energy and financial and technical co-operation.
Ireland has had the honour of presiding over the signing ceremonies for the two Lomé Conventions and we shall strive hard to ensure that the negotiations are completed to allow the Convention to be formally signed before the end of the year.
We look forward also to the UNIDO Conference in August, which will deal especially with the problems of industrialisation in developing countries. We are also actively involved both nationally and as incoming President of the EEC in efforts to improve and streamline the functioning of UNCTAD, an exercise likely to extend itself to other multinational organisations.
In summary, the forthcoming Presidency is an invaluable opportunity to advance the development of the Community and to create an enhanced image for Ireland in Europe but also, and as importantly, to restore in Ireland a proper perception of the Community as an integral part of our future as a nation. The forthcoming Presidency will be a difficult job and as challenging a task as we faced since joining the Community. But the potential for benefit and for respect and regard redounding to this country is considerable.
Let me turn now from the outside world to the task of bringing peace and stability to our own island. The primary focus of the Government's efforts on the Northern Ireland problem since I last introduced the Estimates of this Department has, of course, been on the work of the New Ireland Forum. I would now like to pay tribute to all of those who contributed to the deliberations of that remarkable enterprise; to the Taoiseach and the other party leaders, to the delegations of the SDLP, Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party and my own colleagues in Fine Gael; to all of those who made submissions to the Forum and in particular to those brave and concerned people of the Unionist tradition who did so at risk to themselves but without whose contribution our work would have been immeasurably poorer; to the Secretariat of the Forum who performed an extraordinary service in monitoring our complex discussions and who contributed creatively in bringing the whole process forward from the blank page with which we started to the final product.
For myself I would like to say that it was one of the most important experiences of my career to take part in the Forum. I am glad that a process which was treated by outsiders and even by parts of our own public opinion with a degree of contempt when it began has led to a situation where the Forum Report has been publicised more widely and taken more seriously around the world than any Irish public initiative in living memory.
Following the publication of the Report, the Government, having decided that the findings and conclusions of the Report were in accordance with our policy, brought the report in all its aspects to the attention of the British Government. We have made it clear that we wish, in accordance with the findings of the report itself, to discuss the views outlined in the report and any other views which may contribute to political development with all others involved in the problem of Northern Ireland who oppose the use of violence.
We have discussed the report with the governments of the other member states of the Community, the US Government and the governments of other countries with which Ireland has diplomatic relations.
The Forum has identified eleven major realities in its analysis and the Forum has proposed ten requirements as necessary elements of a framework within which a New Ireland could emerge. The Forum has invited the British Government to join in a process that will recognise these realities and give effect to these requirements and thus promote reconciliation between the two major traditions in Ireland.
The Government will play their part in such a process and will work to ensure that the objectives of the Forum are, as far as possible, realised.
The British Government have given a very preliminary reaction in which they have welcomed some of the key elements of the report. We expect a more considered British reaction in the debate which will take place on the report in the House of Commons early next month.
The Official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland have published a policy document called "The Way Forward". This document, while in no sense a formal response to the Forum report — indeed it was published before the Forum report itself — indicates that there is within that party a new and positive process of reflection on the problem of Northern Ireland. In particular, I welcome the acknowledgment by the Official Unionist Party that the conflict of Northern Ireland "lies in the ultimate political aspirations of the two communities, in their sense of national and political identity and the allegiance that goes with it". It is also encouraging that the Unionists recognise that it is necessary that there be, by the two sections of the community in Northern Ireland, "a mutual recognition of each other's hopes and fears". The party states that its objective is "to find a level at which consensus may be obtained to effect a beginning in the reconciliation of the divided community". The document also calls for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland and goes some distance in acknowledging the Irish national identity of the minority community in Northern Ireland in a number of ways and specifically in accepting the legitimacy of "fostering distinctively Irish cultural activities" through State funding. Now, the specific proposals of the Unionists strike me as being inadequate, but we must welcome the fact that in their analysis of the problem itself their approach has much in common with the realities and the requirements of the situation as defined by the Forum. We must also welcome the fact that in their call for reconciliation and for machinery to protect human rights and to foster Irish cultural activities, they have given evidence of very positive thinking. I believe it is the duty of all of us on the nationalist side to build on the common ground which, for the first time for many years, now appears to be emerging.
The immediate problem that has most preoccupied us in recent months has, of course, been the issue of alienation among the nationalists of Northern Ireland. The Forum report has described the origins of alienation eloquently and in appropriately urgent terms. The first of the major realities identified by the Forum is that "the failure to recognise and accommodate the identity of Northern nationalists has resulted in deep and growing alienation.
The co-operation which the European authority". The Report of the New Ireland Forum and the commitment of this Government to pursuing with the British Government each and every one of the major grievances of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland has helped to begin the process of restoring hope to nationalists in Northern Ireland. In the forefront of these efforts have stood the SDLP. The first evidence of the fact that all these efforts are worth making is the remarkable degree of support given to constitutional nationalism in the recent European Parliament Election in Northern Ireland. As nationalist politicians living in the relative security of our own sovereign State, we can only admire and applaud the resilience of a community which, although devoid of an effective say in their own government, deprived of any institutional expression of their identity and living in a situation of political, social and economic depression, have yet again rallied to the banner of hope and democracy. No one can be complacent about this dangerous problem: it is essential that no one here should, for party political reasons, play games with this problem by, for example, giving legitimacy to the extremists, a legitimacy denied to them by the nationalist people of the North. We must not betray democracy. We must not betray the constitutional democratic nationalists of the North. Much less can the British Government be complacent about the revival of commitment to constitutional nationalism, a revival to which they have so far contributed very little indeed. We, all of us in this State and in Britain, owe a huge debt to the nationalist people of Northern Ireland. Our commitment to them must have priority over the selfish, political or ideological interests of any of us as individuals, as political parties or as governments. Our commitment must be that the nightmare of that people and of the entire community of Northern Ireland will end. The process of bringing real peace and stability into the lives of all the people of Northern Ireland must now begin.
Finally, I should like to refer again briefly to Development Co-operation, an area for which I myself have special responsibility. As I have just said, the wealthier nations of the world — and Ireland is numbered among them, despite our many pressing economic difficulties — have a responsibility to aid poorer countries. Subheads B to H of the Vote for International Co-operation of my Department, which we are discussing here today, provide some of the funds for our programme of official development assistance. I am happy to be able to say that our ODA programme has grown from £1.5 million in 1974 to over £30 million this year, and includes moneys paid from the Central Fund and other Votes, principally the Vote for Agriculture. Our ODA has risen as a percentage of GNP from .05 per cent in 1973 to over .23 per cent in 1984.
Subheads B to H of the Vote for International Co-operation deal with our contributions to the European Development Fund, the funding mechanism for the ACP-EEC Convention, contributions to UN voluntary agencies and our programme of bilateral assistance to developing countries. They total £16,908,000.
The programme of direct bilateral assistance to the developing countries is ten years old this year, and has grown over that period to form over one-third of our total official development assistance or £11,693,000. This aid is provided through two main channels: the bilateral aid programme administered by my Department, and the sponsorship of Irish personnel on development projects in the poorer countries through the Agency for Personal Service Overseas (APSO).
Through our bilateral aid programme, which in 1984 will have at its disposal funds amounting to £9.437 million, an increase of 12 per cent over the allocation for 1983, we are able to utilise Irish skills and human resources, as well as finance, to assist a number of extremely poor countries who are critically lacking in resources of all kinds. In Lesotho, Tanzania and the Sudan, all classified internationally as "least-developed" countries, severely disadvantaged in many respects (Lesotho, for example, is a land-locked country subject to economic and political intimidation by neighbouring South Africa) our programme has brought top-flight Irish engineers, architects, agriculturalists, co-operative specialists, farm managers, nutritionists, para-medical personnel, accountants, university and polytechnic lecturers, economists and industrial specialists to help with projects for which Ireland also supplied the essential, though normally small-scale, capital inputs. A number of these projects have now been in operation for a few years and it is possible to see the signs of real achievement. It often takes several years before one can state with any degree of certainty whether a project is successful or not, and this may depend on many factors, not all of which are within our control. But it is possible, I think, to state that our bilateral projects have been remarkably successful, on the whole, in their initial establishment and in their management to date, and this is largely due to the skill and dedication of our project personnel.
Our bilateral aid programme also assists a number of other countries; Zambia (which is also one of our "priority" countries) and Zimbabwe, where we are assisting mainly in dairy development and higher education. But Irish skills and experience are relevant in many countries, some of which are not well-known here at home, such as Rwanda and Burundi, both small, extremely poor countries, which we are assisting in the development of peat and biomass resources utilising the expertise of Bord na Móna. In addition, through a special scheme of co-financing of projects with voluntary agencies such as Concern, Gorta or the missionary bodies, our programme also funds a large number of small village-level projects. In 1983 we were able to assist 138 such projects in 28 different countries. This year the amount available for co-financing is being increased substantially.
It is important that the public here at home know what is being done in our programme and also get a better appreciation of the problems or underdevelopment and the reasons for our concern. For this reason, we have endeavoured to give greater emphasis to the flow of information on our aid programme and also to encourage development education programmes in conjunction with non-governmental organisations and with educational organisations.
The Agency for Personal Services Overseas (APSO) also celebrate ten years of existence this year. In those ten years the annual grant-in-aid to the agency has risen from £75,000 to £1.8 million, which in 1984 will enable APSO to sponsor the assignments of over 400 volunteer, semi-professional and professional Irish personnel in the poor countries. The normal length of these assignments is two years, and the personnel sponsored include a large proportion of nurses and teachers but also a wide range of other professions and skills.
While our objective in this policy area has always been to assist the poorer countries of the world in meeting disparate needs, the expansion of our programme, especially in the bilateral sector, has brought significant incidental beneficial side-effects to our own economy. It is not a mere coincidence that the growth of our bilateral assistance has been paralleled by a substantial expansion in earnings from the provision of Irish expert services to developing countries. An example of this was provided recently in the annual report of DEVCO (the state-agencies umbrella organisation) which stated that in 1983 the member agencies of DEVCO had earned approximately £45 million for services to developing countries and it was estimated that nearly 800 jobs in this country were sustained by these activities.
The interface between our development co-operation programme, the needs of the developing countries in various sectors and our capacity to respond in various sectors — particularly health, agriculture and education — is the subject of study and discussion by the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation. The recommendations of the council emerging from these studies will be a useful aid in the determination of priorities in the future.
The Estimate introduced by the Minister can be broken down into four categories, the first dealing with international affairs, the second with the EEC, the third with the North and the fourth with development co-operation. I propose to follow that format.
Regarding international affairs, our stance as a country has been consistent over the years. As a small country we can act in a positive way in terms of being an advocate, within the United Nations and associated agencies, for disarmament in its multifarious processes. I will not go into detail on the various moves which have been made to secure disarmament, ranging from the limited reduction of nuclear missiles to the principles of total disarmament. We have been consistent in seeking ways and means forward, whether through political and security co-operation in Europe or within the UN and its agencies.
That is as it should be for a country like ours, with a place in international fora, to take precisely that stance. It is a stance that cannot be taken easily by the super and other big powers, with their commitments, who may feel inhibited from time to time from giving effect to what their peoples would like in many cases, that is effective proposals toward a reduction of the various range of intermediate and strategic nuclear weapons and a reduction in armaments generally. In that whole area the major powers are circumscribed by their very power, of their very nature, from dealing with a problem. Therefore it does lie with countries like ours that are too small to be in this business and yet at the same time carry a moral conviction, standing and status to come forward with positive and constructive proposals in these areas wherever we may be operating, within the United Nations, at the various security conferences organised in Europe to reduce East-West tensions and indeed, in the context of European political co-operation, within the EEC itself.
That policy is consistent with our policy of positive neutrality which I would regard as a basic Finna Fáil policy and which I hope has now received general acceptance within our community here. I hope that the Government agree with us on the aspect of not just being neutral in a negative but in a positive sense, that when we say we are a neutral country we do not mean we are a disinterested country; we mean that we are practising neutrality as a positive policy and at the same time recognising the problems of the bigger powers, demonstrating that we are willing to make our case in the various fora available to us. We must emphasise the need at all times to maintain dialogue, to seek to achieve a reduction in the various missiles production and deployment and generally moving, however slowly, toward general disarmament on a multi-lateral basis.
I am glad that President Reagan chose this forum to take a positive initiative in regard to the disarmament conference at present taking place in Stockholm. We were honoured — and I do not think this received sufficient publicity at home — that he chose this forum to make a responsible, constructive declaration of positive American action in this respect.
The other way in which we have made our neutrality a positive merit in regard to international affairs, within the ambit of the United Nations, has been that of the provision of peacekeeping personnel in various theatres of war, near war and troubled spots throughout the world. I was rather surprised that the Minister did not make any great reference to this area of the peacekeeping aspect of our forces in his remarks. I am sure he will deal with it when replying. This has been a very positive response on the part of a small country like ours, one that does not have the offensive material and muscle. This means that we can perform a role, in conjunction with other peacekeeping countries, and have done so in places like the Lebanon, Cyprus, Zaire, when it was the Congo, and so on. Our role of aiding a peacekeeping operation, monitoring steps toward the achievement of peace, involving ourselves in the independent application of our personnel in areas where those of other countries may for one reason or another be suspect, is an area where a positive contribution can be made by us. Indeed I would regard it as an example of positive neutrality.
During my term in office as Minister for Foreign Affairs I always found there was no pressure exerted on us to abandon this policy of positive neutrality. I want to emphasise that point. Within the EEC, within the United Nations and the various other security fora throughout the world in which we participate, a country like ours, with a policy of positive neutrality clearly understood by other countries, is a welcome addition to the councils of such fora. I say this because usually they need a country to act as an honest broker, or to participate in peacekeeping developments such as those I have mentioned, when our role is welcomed. Certainly I found no pressure being exerted on us, nor was there any need to give in to any pressure in this respect. Our role is a respected one, well established over the years, and there is no reason we should depart one iota from it. That is why I foresaw some dangers in certain aspects or developments of European political co-operation, such as that moving toward a military involvement or entanglement. I do agree with the Minister when he states that the reactivation of the Western European Union represents, if you like, a way out for the larger powers to organise their purely defensive and military matters through that agency while countries such as Greece, Denmark and ourselves — who do not particularly feel very strongly, and which are small countries in that whole area — are left, if you like, disengaged from that situation. If European political co-operation develops along those lines that, in itself, will be a good development.
Our role of positive neutrality can be of positive advantage, of positive good, to the free world and the world at large in acting as an honest broker in international and diplomatic affairs in the fora I have mentioned and also by our participation in various peacekeeping operations.
The most serious problem of the world at large remains the whole Middle East and Iran-Iraq area. It is remarkable how little attention that war — here I refer to the Iran-Iraq one — is receiving at present in the press of the western world. It is a very serious, bitter war, involving a large number of people in a key area of the world which, if anarchy sets in, undoubtedly and immediately affects the whole of the western world. It is a very serious reflection on all of us in the western world, if you like in that part of the North Atlantic world — so dependent on oil as a basic energy material — that nothing of a positive kind in the way of a real practical, diplomatic initiative has emerged to deal either with the Iran-Iraq situation or with the general Middle East one. It is one troublesome, serious area which in the morning could trigger off a serious world situation. At the same time there appears to be a general atmosphere of political complacency in the diplomatic sense, in regard to paying attention to that area and the sense of urgency appears to have departed from the attitude towards it. The Community itself and the western world generally, unless they want to wake up one day and find a very serious crisis on their hands, should move into this area in some positive and meaningful manner. Irrational forces have been allowed to break loose and very little preparation appears to be made to deal with these irrational forces and in some way try to control a situation that could get out of hand. The whole Arab-Moslem problem, stretching as it does across one-third of the globe from Tangier to Indonesia, is a powder keg of potential trouble in the world at present and the basic resource of oil is in greatest supply there and easily obtained. The combination of oil, nationalism, religion and tribal and national differences, the whole mix that exists in that area of the world, is very serious and the nations of the western world, who are dependent to a large degree for their prosperity on stability in that part of the world, are paying less than enough attention to it.
As regards the EEC, some progress has been made, according to the Minister's brief, towards a solution of the British budgetary problem. I take it that that is primarily what he is referring to although he does not mention it specifically. Again I am disappointed at an omission. The British budgetary problem is one that Britain has been fighting out herself to the detriment of and causing very serious damage to the Community. I am not going into the rights or wrongs of her case vis-à-vis her other Community partners. That has been debated sufficiently. However, one very serious matter which has not been referred to in the Minister's speech is the vital question of Community financing. This is far more important than whether Britain gets or does not get £X rebate. My only hope is that, once this problem is out of the way, following on that will be a British willingness to withdraw opposition to the limitation on own resources — I hope the Minister in his reply will give some indication about this — the 1 per cent ceiling that is circumscribing completely Community expenditure. The British up to now have concentrated on their budgetary rebate. I hope that the solution of that will open the way towards raising the own resources revenue to a reasonable level as far as the Community is concerned. Not just the British have been in favour of the 1 per cent level. The Germans also have adopted a conservative, ultra-banking attitude towards this 1 per cent limitation, as have the Dutch to some degree. If the British are satisfied for the time being — we can never be certain that they are fully satisfied — and if that chapter is closed, I hope that the energies of this Government and of all peoples within the Community who are concerned about the prospects and the future of the Community will now be directed towards raising the own resources limit to a reasonable target. It should be doubled from 1 per cent to 2 per cent — and that is very conservative — if we are to have any reasonable transfer of resources through the Social and Regional Funds that will help to build up the less favoured regions of the Community. There must be a rise to at least 2 per cent.
It is absolutely Alice in Wonderland language to talk about the accession of Portugal and Spain without talking about an increase in own resources. The Minister referred to the accession of Portugal and Spain in the current year. That may be on, and I am not going to say anything against their accession, but the Community cannot work within a 1 per cent revenue ceiling with Spain and Portugal in. The whole apparatus of the institutions of the Community will break down. At its minimum, with Spain and Portugal coming in the ceiling must be raised. Furthermore, if the aspirations and objectives of the less favoured regions of the Community are to be met to any legitimate degree there must be an increase. I suggest that we should here and now declare ourselves in favour of at least doubling the own resources mechanism for the raising of finance for the purpose of (a) dealing with Spain and Portugal and (b) more important as far as we are concerned, financing a real Social Fund and a real Regional Fund that will in effect allow for a positive and definite transfer of moneys to us and to other countries like us who have an unanswerable case.
One of the founding principles of the EEC is that there should be a transfer of resources to less favoured regions of the Community. We have an unanswerable case on the merits, not because we are Ireland looking for a transfer of moneys but because we have an unanswerable case on the facts regarding our GNP, for such a transfer of resources for infrastructural purposes through the Social and Regional Funds or through other outlets such as European Investment Bank credits at subsidised interest rates. I offer that to the Minister and I would like to hear his reply on it. I am disappointed that no reference was made to either of those two basic funds in the Minister's speech on the EEC aspects, and also that no reference was made to the financial aspects both in regard to raising the own resources ceiling and the financing and means of financing once you increase the own resources ceiling. One of the main purposes of the Community is to have equalisation of prosperity throughout all regions of the Community and this implies a real transfer of resources through the mechanisms that are there and are not properly financed and cannot be properly financed as long as the 1 per cent ceiling is maintained. I would like the Minister to refer in his reply to the aspect of increasing transfer expenditure to countries like Ireland and the raising of the ceiling to ensure that that is done.
I would like to emphasise also in that context that there is no point in talking about phraseology like, "The Community is on the move again". That is all right for rhetorical purposes, but we must get down to the nitty-gritty of how we get the Community on the move again and the only nitty-gritty involved in that is to raise the money for expenditure and to ensure a transfer of a greater share of that expenditure through the financial mechanisms that exist for the benefit of countries such as ours. That makes commonsense. In regard to unemployment, I share the Minister's concern that this is one area which, because of the lack of available resources, the Community has not tackled. It is a problem which again can be tackled only by way of some of the financial mechanisms such as the Social and Regional Funds and the European Investment Bank.
The unemployment problem requires a great deal of research and development and much greater investigation into the question of the sort of industries that should be established. There must be a higher level of funding for the various financial mechanisms provided the Community is satisfied as to the importance of the projects involved. There has not been sufficient investigation at Community level of the unemployment problem. Many stop-gap measures have been taken in regard to safeguarding existing employment or to propping up existing situations but there has been no real expenditure on research and development as to the type of industries that will be suitable for the future and the ones in which the brains and the talents of our young people can be utilised.
It is necessary to ensure that Europe as a whole keeps pace reasonably with Japan and the US who are the forerunners in the computer and electronic fields but Europe has fallen behind both these countries in this field. If it had not been for the farsightedness of the IDA who in advance of their time secured such industries for this country, based on Japanese and American back-up and knowledge, we would not have the level of industry that we have and which is surviving well in this area. The IDA acted outside the Community as such but using our membership to have the industries located here. The Community has done very little for its members in this respect. To some extent we have benefitted from that situation but that was because of the IDA having the wisdom to go outside the Community, to go to the sources of research and development in the electronics and computer fields.
Because of the self-imposed financial limitations and the situation brought about by the British budgetary row, the Community has not had the necessary finance to engage in the further research and development required within Europe if Europe as a whole is not to lag totally behind the US and Japan. Perhaps the Community has done us a service in enabling us to deal directly with these two countries. In other words, it is an ill wind that does not blow somebody some good. This country can be very proud to be at least level with, if not ahead of, other European countries in the area of electronics and computers in so far as the sophistication of our industrial manufacturing plants is concerned. We must maintain our position because technology in those areas changes rapidly.
The third area to which the Minister referred was Northern Ireland and rightly, he referred to the success of the New Ireland Forum. The forum report got a tremendous reception outside the country. That is something that may not be realised here. The main purpose of the forum was to ensure that we presented a consensus view of the Nationalist parties, both North and South, that would be responsible, constructive and couched in such terms as to be accepted in that light. It has been accepted across the board outside Ireland. It is important that that stance is maintained. The main thrust of the whole forum development is to ensure an environment of political thought and action which would induce the British Government particularly and other responsible authorities also to arrive, by way of discussion, at a conference situation. That is written into the final report. There is no point in having this excellent document as a monument to people such as myself who were involved in drafting it unless it is followed through. Consequently, what is needed now is some action arising from the report. It is of tremendous importance that every diplomatic skill available to the Government is adopted and utilised to ensure that we arrive at a conference situation in which all interested parties start talking. That is the only outcome that will be satisfactory and meaningful.
Nationalist Ireland has spoken through the medium of that report in a rational and constructive manner. The next step must be that the country which carries the major share of the responsibility for the Northern Ireland situation takes an initiative with other countries or in some other way and with parties and bodies in Northern Ireland and in this part of the island. The aim must be that however we devise it or structure it we finish up with a conference in which there will be meaningful discussions and negotiations. Unless that is achieved, the report will remain merely an interesting document and a very helpful one but nothing more. I hope the Minister will refer to this aspect in his reply and give us some indication as to the efforts being made to induce progress along the lines I have mentioned and towards an eventual conference. Such a conference will have to take place if we are to work out some sort of way forward in this highly intractable problem which has bedevilled life on this island and also relations between us and the neighbouring island for so many centuries.
The Minister referred also to the question of development co-operation. I was very glad to hear of the progress made in this area. One aspect which was highlighted in the remarks made in relation to DEVCO, the organisation of the State-sponsored bodies, is that the number of practical projects and the level of practical involvement that follows on the various multi-lateral and bi-lateral programmes involved is tremendously important, that this is an area which is not merely right and good in itself but which also has a very practical connotation.
There is nothing more sensible for a small country to engage in than that kind of development. We are doing the right thing and following the tradition of helping the less-developed regions. Practical benefits flow to this country from that, particularly in relation to the employment of technical and professional people. The Minister mentioned various professions including engineers, architects, agriculturalists, co-operative specialists, farm managers, para-medical personnel, accountants, university and poly-technic lecturers, industrial specialists, economists and so on. From that list we can see the spin-off benefit that accrues.
The Minister has been in various parts of Africa. I have also seen the work done on the ground there. Having the right professional people on the ground is far better than all the grants and loans in the world. We all know money is needed but in such countries one cannot buy good personnel. It is tremendously important to have good personnel who will give more than the call of duty demands. A small country whose training and education is well advanced as is ours can give of its best and bring practical expertise and professional help to less well-off areas.
The DEVCO report stated that their member agencies earned approximately £45 million in 1983. It was estimated that nearly 500 jobs in this country were sustained by their activities. That is a worthwhile development. We cannot afford to give the kind of money wealthier nations can afford to give but we can give of our wealth in personnel. That is where we make an important contribution.
We do not propose to oppose this Estimate. However, I have raised some points which I would like the Minister to answer. I pay tribute to the Department for the work they have done in spreading the image of this country abroad as a constructive one. Wherever we take a hand in international matters or make a contribution it is always regarded as constructive and responsible. It is a reputation the Department have earned for our country and one which we should cherish.
Compared to the Estimate for many other Government Departments the Estimate of £20 million for this Department is an insignificant sum. From my experience, it represents value for money because of the work done not just in the EEC and the UN but in other capitals of the world in promoting our interests, industry and tourism. Over £1,000 million was allocated to the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare and almost a £1,000 million to the Department of Education. The Department of Foreign Affairs is an efficient one which does its job well and the sum of £20 million is not excessive.
I remember being told by a New Zealander in Paris that he had to go to the British Embassy to get information about Ireland. The Irish Embassy did not have sufficient information and library services. He could get all the information he wanted in the British Embassy. Perhaps the Minister will look at that aspect of services abroad. It was somewhat embarrassing.
In passing, Deputy Lenihan mentioned Fianna Fáil's attitude to positive neutrality. I do not want to raise any contentious matters. My predisposition is towards a neutral Ireland although like many people I like to reason out why we should hold a particular view. There has not been any proper debate on this. I understand CND are undertaking a door-to-door canvass. I welcome that. It is a good democratic service. There seems to be a fear of one party outdoing the other on neutrality. Fianna Fáil's contribution to positive neutrality in recent times has been issuing advertisements with mushroom clouds. These were issued on the eve of the recent election and can only have been an attempt to frighten the public. It is a pity we cannot get away from a fear that one party might score over the other and have a proper debate on neutrality so that we will know why it is that we are neutral. I should like such a debate to be held. It would be a useful exercise for us to engage in.
In recent weeks a survey was carried out which showed the vast majority of people were in favour of our not having an outside alignment. I find it hard to believe people hold that view since nobody has ever argued the case for them. They hear the major parties trying to get in ahead of each other to reaffirm their stance on neutrality. Yet 70 per cent of the people have a view on it. I should like a debate on it so that those views will be soundly formed and soundly based. If they are not, they could be easily changed. We owe it to the country to use this Parliament to debate the issue. Perhaps at an early stage in the future we will have a non-contentious debate so that all can say why they want us to remain neutral. There would be an official record of our position.
With regard to the Fianna Fáil position, in 1962 when it seemed possible that it might be an issue on EEC entry negotiations, Seán Lemass said the existence of Partition was no longer in itself a reason for refusing to join NATO and that neutrality might have outlived its usefulness. That was said in 1962 and he implied the same thing in June 1961 in the Official Report at Volume 190, column 179. There are very good grounds to believe that the seán Lemass led Fianna Fáil Government, more than any other Government since the foundation of the State, and certainly more than any other Fianna Fáil Government, had been preparing the ground for a departure from a neutral Ireland. I wonder at what stage Fianna Fáil have swung back towards neutrality. Surely we should all put our views on the record so that we can benefit from the debate. Some Members of this Parliament are starved of avenues of information on neutrality and foreign affairs generally.
In 1956 Mr. Liam Cosgrave, then Minister for External Affairs, outlined three broad principles on which Ireland's participation in the United Nations would depend: first, the support of the United Nations Charter, second, the independence of blocs in the United Nations, and third, a commitment to preserve the Charistian civilisation of which we are a part, and with that end in view to support wherever possible those powers principally responsible for the defence of the free world in the resistance to the spread of Communist power and influence. To some extent those three principles have survived the test of time albeit in differing degrees and emphasis and at different times. There can be little doubt that despite our avowed position on neutrality, there is a very strong anti-Communist pro-free world opinion in this country and, in the final analysis we have to ask ourselves if we can be completely neutral. Given the way we practice our foreign policy compared with the way we preach it — when I say our I mean not only this Government but successive Irish Governments — I think it is time we had a full scale debate on foreign policy to see where everybody stands.
There is a need for more regular debates on foreign affairs. I will quote from Patrick Keatinge's book, the Formulation of Irish Foreign Policy. On page 205, he says:
When Mr. MacBride complained in 1953 that it was "...a pity that, once a year at least, we could not have a debate or discussion in the House on foreign policy...", he was thinking of the estimate debate, where the "Minister...should give at least a broad outline of the Government's policy..." Possibly, a more satisfactory arrangement would be to have separate debates on policy and administration, for, although the two are closely related and may cover the same issues, they deserve to be examined separately.
That is a very worthy viewpoint. We tend to think of the administration of foreign affairs and Government policy as the same thing and to debate them in this House in a general, local and uninformed way. One of the best debates on foreign affairs in this House was held in 1957 on a motion on the disapproval of the Government's foreign policy. We do not seem to take debates on foreign affairs policy very seriously. It is left to one or two people to speak very generally on these issues. I would welcome the opportunity to hear the views of experienced Members on foreign affairs, but there seems to be a shyness on the part of Deputies on all sides to get involved in a serious debate in this area. In my view it would help us if we had a Dáil Committee on Foreign Affairs. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this matter.
As an island we tend to be somewhat isolationist and to feel that we do not need to take an interest in foreign affairs. Mr. Keatinge also said he thought there was no Parliament in the world in which matters of foreign affairs were dealt with so casually as in this parliament. Mr. Keatinge was commenting on a speech made by John Costello in the Dáil in 1957. In 1957 Mr. Costello said that there should be some sort of machinery created by the Government which would not affect the precious constitutional right of having the last word in policy but which would at least have the advantage of telling us what is going on. I do not think things have changed very much since John Costello made those points.
Legislation affords the House the main opportunity to comment on various Government Departments, but it is very rare that we deal with legislation for the Department of Foreign Affairs. We get an opportunity when we discuss the annual Estimates, the occasional EEC instrument and at Question Time but we do not debate foreign affairs as much as other Departments. As I said, I think we should have a Dáil Committee on Foreign Affairs, since other Departments have been afforded such an opportunity.
In 1944 in the Official Report, volume 94, column 1338, James Dillon said: "All that we do, or can hope to do, in this country is materially conditioned by the state of the world in which we live." That is a statement of fact. It is extraordinary that this Parliament leaves the whole area of foreign affairs to our very able officials in that Department, to the junior and senior Ministers and to an occasional interruption from the Opposition spokesman. We do not take an interest in foreign affairs. Given our role in the United Nations and the European Economic Community and given the pressures that may be on us to join other bodies, such as WEU, and given the role we are abstaining from playing in NATO, we should have a committee of this House to determine and to supervise Government policies.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State for the interest he has taken in overseas aid, which is his specific responsibility. The greatest economic pressure which will be exerted on this country will come from countries in Asia, such as Japan, South Korea and so on, countries where there are low labour costs and high output. People in other regions of the world could learn from those countries. People must realise that Europe will not always be the strong economic unit it is today and it is in our interest to ensure that developing countries, perhaps towards the end of the century, will be competing against Europe for world trade. It is in our interest to help to create balanced development of those countries, not just from pity or sympathy but mainly from self-interest.
It is in our interest that those countries will develop economically and that we will have a mutual understanding with them. At some time in the future we may be depending on their goodwill. It is a silly attitude for us to consider overseas aid now as a bit of charity to black babies or whatever. The developing countries must be helped from our own self-interest so that they will develop as democratic states with whom we can work for a better economic order.
Through this relatively small Estimate I hope the Minister will find it possible, particularly with the advent of our EEC presidency, to go beyond the EEC commitment for overseas aid. Even if it were only one half per cent more, we should give the lead and put pressure on the other nine members to do the same out of their national budgets, which in proportionate terms would be much more than we could manage. We must try to interest our EEC partners more in giving aid for overseas development.
There is a great need for more information from independent sources. Deputies need research so that they can contribute towards the formulation of policies and so that they can question the Government intelligently on foreign policy. With that end in mind, I hope the Minister will accede to the request to the UN for assistance to set up a UN office in Dublin. There is one in London which provides much needed information in regard to international matters and helps people to get a better grasp of these matters, leading ultimately to hopes for a better world order. I understand the cost would be about £40,000 and I urge the Minister to get this off the ground.
On the Western European Union, it seems clear that there is a fear that the US are losing their firmness of commitment to European defence. We take many things for granted, for instance, that the Warsaw Pact countries will protect what they think are their interests in the eastern bloc and that the European super powers, with the Americans and Canadians, will defend our interests in Europe. It seems the Americans are changing their priorities, that they are concentrating more on South and Central America. The US may feel that if the Europeans are serious about their own defence they will participate in the Western European Union. Because of our neutral status we would have difficulty in joining any such-organisation, but let us be clear that at some time our policy on this matter may be put to the test if the Americans weaken in their attitude to European defence. In such an eventuality the WEU would become increasingly involved in defence policies, separate from the NATO arrangement. Consequently, we may not be able to depend on other European countries automatically accepting our neutral status.
It is clear from discussions I have had that in the event of any threat to European security Ireland's neutrality simply would not be recognised, particularly by those who are friendly to us rather than our stated enemies. Therefore, we will have to review our position so that this Government and Parliament will know and that our European partners will know where we stand and why. I wish the Minister and the Minister of State well during the period of our EEC presidency.
I am sure the Minister will appreciate that it is virtually impossible to deal adequately with such an important Estimate in the short time at our disposal. It would be impossible to deal with one aspect of Irish foreign policy in ten minutes, and once again this year I wish to record my protest at the inadequate time allowed. We were allowed two hours last year for this Estimate and we have been given the same period this year. Last year the Minister promised that he would arrange for a more detailed and longer debate to enable more Deputies to contribute. We still have not had a detailed debate on foreign affairs. I appeal to the Minister of State to arrange as soon as possible for such a debate when the Dáil resumes in the autumn.
Like Deputy Mitchell, I feel that the issue of neutrality should be debated at length here, particularly precisely what we mean by neutrality. It is quite easy for all of us to throw around fancy terms like neutrality, non-alignment, military alliances, positive neutrality, allegiance to the free world, as stated by Deputy Mitchell. What do we mean by such terms? Does Deputy Mitchell include in the term "the free world" countries like Chile, Turkey, Turkish-occupied Cyprus? There are dozens of countries in the so-called free world which are ruled by dictatorships, and the so-called "unfree free world" has been relegated to second place because they pursue social assessments different from the West. That would be an important debate.
What does our neutrality mean? Are we neutral simply on the side of the US, the side of Great Britain, the side of the EEC? Are we non-aligned? Do we take our policy issue by issue? Do we adopt an independent stance internationally and criticise when criticism is necessary regardless of whom it may offend, or do we simply adopt the mantle of neutrality as protection in time of war? The position today is total nonsense. There is no such thing as a protective nuclear umbrella for us from NATO. Indeed, as Deputy Mitchell said, in the event of an invasion from the Warsaw Pact countries we are far more likely to be invaded by the NATO countries because of the value they place on certain of our ports, airfields and so forth. These areas need clarification and debate. For far too long the various Ministers for Foreign Affairs more or less have been given a free hand by this House and have not been criticised to the extent to which they should. I am talking of criticism in relation to the attitudes and policies which they have adopted.
We have time now only to deal very briefly with a number of issues. I am concerned, for instance at the Minister's remarks about Central America and, in particular, El Salvador. He seems to be giving a welcome to the result of the recent presidential election there. It would be a fatal mistake if this country were to give recognition to the person successful in that election, if we may call it such. That election some months ago is not to any extent similar to our recent election. The Minister should think very carefully before he attempts to give recognition to President Duarte, who is certainly not a democratically elected President.
That is not what the Socialist International say.
The Deputy may look after the Socialist International and I shall look after The Workers' Party and myself.
Deputy De Rossa, without interruption, please.
Another point in relation to Central America is the question of Nicaragua. The fact is that the efforts to destabilise Nicaragua continue day by day. Massive funds are being injected into the rebel groups who are trying to destabilise the country. If this Government were to take an independent and positive step by diplomatically recognising the Nicaraguan Government, they would be placing on record their support for that small country in its efforts to create a decent livelihood for all its people who have suffered for generations under the Somozan dictatorship.
The Minister also dealt with the question of Northern Ireland and was fairly fulsome in his praise of the Forum Report. Clearly, in the time left to me I shall not be in a position to deal with this report but I should like to put on record that The Workers' Party — the only party in this House who have organised themselves in Northern Ireland and have elected representatives there — have been working for years on the side of peace and democracy and for jobs in Northern Ireland. It is on those lines the solution to the problems in the North will be found.
There is reference in the Forum Report and in the Official Unionist document "The Way Forward" to a Bill of Rights. This is an issue on which The Workers' Party have been campaigning for the past 15 years and more — since the days of the Civil Rights Movement. However, the British Government have still not produced a Bill of Rights. Indeed, if one had been produced 15 years ago many of the problems now being experienced in Northern Ireland could have been avoided.
I appeal again to the Minister of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to arrange a longer debate on foreign affairs, to enable Deputies to become involved in this area.
The Minister, to conclude at 10.20 p.m.
First, I apologise to the House for not being here to move my Estimate at 8.30 p.m. I think that the House will be aware of the reasons. In particular, I should like to apologise to Deputy Collins, the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Foreign Affairs, for not being here when he spoke. Deputy O'Keeffe issued my script for me and spoke himself on ODA. The House will realise the reason for my delay in Paris — a very important meeting of the European Council was taking place there. The results were satisfactory on two counts, first — and there was an element of this in the European elections last week — the people were beginning to lose some faith in Europe as a vehicle for carrying the dreams of themselves and their children into the future. That was an interpretation of their abstention right across Europe from the Aran Islands to the borders of Germany and to the Greek Islands. People could not see the relevance of Europe to their everyday life. This lack of relevance to them was amply demonstrated by what must have appeared to the outside world as bickerings over relatively small sums of money — given the vastness of the budget which the European Council were administering — over three summit meetings now, their failure to come to terms and solve their problems, yet frequently issuing press statements at the end of European summit meetings telling other countries how to solve theirs.
That phase of Europe has now come to an end. The Stuttgart summit meeting which was held exactly this time last year put together an imaginative, ambitious and dynamic programme for what was termed by Chancellor Kohl at the time the relaunching of Europe. It has taken us 12 months, in spite of the urgency spoken about by him at that time in engaging in this exercise, to agree amongst ourselves on all the details of that package.
One detail was, of course, the restructuring of the Common Agricultural Policy which was of such significance to this country. As I said in my opening address, the outcome was very satisfactory, not just for the farmers or for the agricultural sector but for the country as a whole. Agriculture is our number one resource and industry and will be in the foreseeable future the main generator of exports and of jobs. For that reason the Government were concerned, over the last winter and up to the Brussels Summit meeting three months ago, to ensure that our partners in the EEC appreciated that fact and understood the damage that would be done to the growth of our economy if the super-levy as proposed were inflicted on this country. In the event in Brussels we managed to convince them of the justice of our case in that regard. The agricultural package eventually agreed there, which is now part of the whole package, gives us the possibility of growth for this year while all the other EEC countries are having to cut back on their agricultural production. This is quite significant and should be recognised as a proof to anybody in Ireland who has some doubts as to the benefits to the economy or the concern of the richer and more powerful members of the EEC for those less well off.
It is quite true to say that those who are paying most into the coffers of the EEC were also most ready to recognise that our plight was different and that agriculture in this country was quite unique in importance, in comparison even with North Sea oil to the British economy, or steel to Germany. Those who were paying most, that is the Germans, recognised this fact and, with the other eight members, agreed that Ireland should be allowed growth in its dairy sector while the rest of Europe was being asked to cut back. We are, of course, very grateful for this, but it was also a major negotiation achievement on the part of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture that we were able to bring this about. I believe that point is understood and appreciated by the agricultural community.
I want to say something about an event which occurred almost exactly a month ago, that is, the visit of President Reagan when he addressed the Dáil and made a speech which, in years to come, may be looked back on as one of the significant milestones on the road to world disarmament, an end which we all very much desire. I suppose I should not have been so surprised at the numbers of people who engaged in protests against the head of a very friendly nation. I was absolutely disgusted that Members of the Oireachtas — and I am not speaking about Deputy De Rossa or Deputy Mac Giolla — should attend a demonstration, while President Reagan was speaking in this House, at which the flag of the United States was burned outside the gates of this House. I do not think any greater insult could be offered to the people of a nation, or their elected representative, than to burn the symbol of their freedom, their strength and their nationhood in another country.
Before President Reagan came here I said on a number of occasions that people were entitled to protest. We cannot all agree all the time. People were entitled to protest so long as the protest was peaceful. I was ashamed that Irish people, particularly Members of the Oireachtas, should allow that to happen on the streets of Dublin, the capital city of Ireland. There is no greater insult you can offer to a nation than to do that to their flag. In this case on behalf of 99.9 per cent of the Irish people, including all Members of this House, and many of the people who were protesting in other ways, I should like to apologise to the President of the American people for that grievous insult which was offered to them here.
The significance of President Reagan's visit has not yet been realised. The visit and the way it was portrayed on American television can do nothing but good for this country. The only black mark was that disgusting incident outside the gates of this House. He is the President of the most powerful nation in the world. People insulted him before he came by saying he was coming to get votes and had no interest in Ireland, or in anything Irish. It is their stock in trade to use that kind of exaggerated, unfounded and untrue allegation.
President Reagan came here long before he went into politics. He also came here when he was Governor of California. The polls suggest that he did not need to go anywhere this year to be reelected. That may prove to be wrong, but anybody who say him on television or was with him in Ballyporeen will have recognised the genuine affection and emotion with which he established where his roots were. I have no doubt that his interest in Ireland was not rekindled, because that would imply that it had died, but was very much enhanced on that occasion.
I said this also before he came here. Ireland is the only country in the world which the President of the United States picked out and recommended for investment. It is the only country in the world in which he asked businessmen in his own country to invest. This was long before he decided to visit here. That in itself says something for the man.
As I came in I heard Deputy De Rossa talking about the policies of Duarte in El Salvador. I am open to correction, but I think he said it was hardly a democratic election. It was certainly an improvement on the election there two years ago. Everybody on this side of the world who is interested in democracy should encourage the Government in El Salvador to be more open to its opponents and to follow the democratic path which they have so gingerly stepped onto in the past few months against appalling opposition in arms from the left and possibly from the right. There was an incident over the weekend which tends to give credence to what I am saying.
I am glad the European Community has accepted an invitation from the President of Costa Rica to engage in co-operation talks with the five central American countries, as well as the four Contadora countries. Many of the countries in that region are poor and none of them knows democracy. For hundreds of years many of them have been living under dictatorships and 99 per cent of the people lived in almost abject poverty. A very small percentage of the people had untold and unnecessary wealth accumulated on the backs of those poor people. We owe it to them to encourage them not to fall under the influence of any outside forces, but to develop their own system of democracy, social justice and civil rights for their people. In many ways Europe can play an important role in that regard.
I hope the initiative taken by President Monge of inviting Europe to meet them next September will bear fruit, not just for El Salvador but also for Nicaragua which in other ways needs as careful watching. That is another country which feels under threat. The people are facing into an election at the end of this year. I hope the result of the election will be at least as democratic as the one in El Salvador. We will have to wait and see. The cheers and the acclaim with which the Sandinista Government were welcomed in Nicaragua were somewhat diminished by something which happened since they took power. Their chance will come next November to have an open and democratic election and to show the world that they are genuinely interested in democracy and that they are taking heed of their opponents, who must be allowed to contest the election and must be allowed to operate with a free press and to enjoy all the other freedoms which we associate with democracy. I am looking forward very much to taking part in those talks in two months time. I am sure they will be successful.
As I said in my opening remarks, for the third time since we joined the EEC we are assuming the Presidency on Monday next. On neither of the other occasions on which we occupied this very important post were the times so challenging. I hope the organisation of that Presidency, which I am sure is in train, will be well recognised as being good. I hope we will be able to build on what was started in Stuttgart, and added to today in Fontainebleau and that, during our six months in the Presidency between now and the end of the year, we will be able to show Europe that Ireland can live up to its reputation of being truly Community minded, as we did on the last two occasions, and that we can organise and lead the Community in the direction of giving hope for the future for young people and providing jobs for the 15 million people who have not got jobs at the moment, and can also play a leading role in world affairs. If we give advice we will be giving it in the sure knowledge that we have managed to straighten out our own affairs.
We also want to show the world outside that the Europe which they may have thought was faltering on its path towards the goals outlined for it over 25 years ago by the founders of the European movement has steadied on course now. We can show the world that the hope which Europe offered to its own people and to the peoples of the world for 25 years is undimmed. We can now work to achieve the growth and enlargement of the Community and fulfil all our hopes that it will grow to become a political union which was the dream of the founding fathers. With all its faults it can be said that one of the main goals has been achieved, because it is inconceivable now that we would ever again see blood shed in anger on the mainland of Europe. It is totally inconceivable that those countries which are so closely bound together in the Community could ever again go to war with one another.
Again, I should like to apologise to the House for not being here to move the Estimate. I should like to thank those Deputies who have contributed. I shall read the Official Report with great interest to take up the points that have been made in the debate.
