Soviet Union Jewish Community: Motion.

Mr. Shatter

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann — recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

—Recalling the final act of the Helsinki conference on security and co-operation in which the participating States undertake to recognise and respect religious freedom and to deal in a positive and humanitarian way with applications to emigrate of persons who wish to reunite with members of their families and recalling that the concluding document of the Madrid meeting reaffirms and strengthens these undertakings.

—Seriously disturbed by reports of continuing harassment, arrests and imprisonment of Soviet Jews and viewing with grave concern the drastic reduction in the numbers who have been allowed to leave the Soviet Union.

—Noting that the Jewish community in the Soviet Union is an oppressed cultural minority subject to severe and systematic discriminatory action by the authorities and considering their position to be a cause for international concern:—

(1) Calls on the Soviet Government to permit all Soviet Jews applying to leave the Soviet Union for reunification with their families to do so without impediment and to ensure that the presentation of such applications does not prejudice or modify the rights of the applicants or of members of their families in the areas of employment, housing, resident status, access to social, economic or educational benefits or any other rights.

(2) Calls on the Soviet Government to permit Soviet Jews full freedom to pursue Jewish religious and cultural activities.

(3) Calls for the release of those Soviet Jews who have been imprisoned or exiled because of their desire to leave the Soviet Union or to exercise their right to freedom of religion and cultural expression."

This is only the second occasion since I became a Member of this House that there has been an all-party motion concerned with international affairs and human rights. The first such motion was concerned with EI Salvador and I had the privilege of proposing it in this House in December 1981. Now I have the privilege of proposing a motion which expresses this House's concern at the treatment of Soviet Jews and the failure of the Soviet Union to abide by and implement the human rights provisions contained in the final act of the Helsinki conference on security and co-operation and reiterated in the concluding document of the Madrid conference held in September 1983.

It is particularly appropriate that a motion of this nature comes before the House today, the last day this House will be sitting prior to International Human Rights day on 10 December 1984, as the problems of Russian Jewry are concerned uniquely with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Though the Soviet Government officially recognises Soviet jews as a nationality, it systematically denies them the cultural and religious rights guaranteed to all ethnic minorities, not only under international law and conventions to which the Soviet Union is a party, but also under the Soviet Union's own constitution and laws.

In the religious sphere, Judaism is the only recognised religious denomination within the Soviet Union unable to maintain organised links with co-religionists outside the state. There is no Jewish school in the Soviet Union. Religious literature is practically non-existent and such literature brought into the Soviet Union by visiting foreign nationals is frequently confiscated.

The Hebrew language is practically banned. The authorities have forbidden it to be taught. As a result, during the seventies an increasing number of Jews studied and taught Hebrew privately. Until the last two to three years the Soviet authorities were prepared to turn a blind eye to that but this has now changed. In a number of cases teachers' homes have been raided. Teaching materials and religious books have been confiscated and Hebrew teachers have been denounced in the Soviet press for anti-Soviet activities. The most disturbing part of this aspect of Soviet policy in the past 18 months is a virulent anti-semitic campaign in the Soviet press and other media and the arrest and detention of a number of Hebrew teachers.

It is estimated that there are about three million Jews in the Soviet Union. In the USSR, being Jewish does not place one in the position simply of being a member of a religious minority. One is regarded as possessing a distinct and identifiable separate nationality. Conscious of this Jewish identity, many Soviet Jews applied during the late sixties and seventies to leave the Soviet Union so that they might rejoin members of their families in Israel and elsewhere. Initially the Soviet Government permitted only a small number to leave. For example, in 1968, 229 were allowed emigrate. The numbers gradually increased and between 1970 and 1980 a total number of 245,000 Jews left the Soviet Union and rejoined family and relations outside. In 1979 alone, 51,000, the largest number in any single year, were allowed to leave. This emigration resulted not simply from Soviet goodwill but as a result of a number of factors including détente with the US and also, and principally, the unprecedented pressure of the social and political movements in the West generally, not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere. Those movements publicised regularly the plight in which Soviet Jews found themselves.

However, in the past three years the position of Soviet Jews in this regard has tragically and drastically changed. Though it is estimated currently that there are in the region of 400,000 Jewish applicants for permission to leave the Soviet Union, few under present Soviet policy are allowed to leave. The number permitted to leave in 1982 was 2,692. In 1983 the figure reduced to 1,314 and I understand that up to the end of November this year only 750 approximately have been allowed to leave. In other words, by the end of 1984 fewer than 1,000 Jews will have been allowed to leave the Soviet Union as against 400,000 applications and compared with the 51,000 who were allowed to leave in 1979.

Many of those who have sought to leave have been subject to systematic state-sponsored and approved persecution. The mere expression of the desire to emigrate is regarded as an anti-Soviet activity or as defamatory of the Soviet state and can result in immediate expulsion from employment rendering those left unemployed liable to criminal prosecution as "parasites". Children of applicants are expelled from university and those Jews who manage to retain their employment following application to leave are subjected constantly to discrimination and humilation such as sharp reductions in salary and job status and professional isolation. Even more disturbing is the fact that during the past two years 19 Jews active in seeking emigration and in Jewish cultural activities have been arrested, tried and sentenced to various periods of imprisonment and exile. For example, Boris Kanyevsky was sentenced in Moscow in mid-January 1983 to five years' internal exile for, and I quote, "slander of the Soviet state and social system". He had merely compiled a report on alleged academic discrimination against Jews. Yosif Begun, an unsuccessful applicant for permission to emigrate and a private teacher of Hebrew, was sentenced on October 15 last to seven years hard labour and five years internal exile for producing and distributing anti-Soviet literature. He has been in prison for two years to date without having any access during that time to members of his family.

Currently a large number of people are awaiting trial. It would not be possible during this short debate to list all of them but they include Alexander Kholmiansky, whose sole crime was that he was a teacher of Hebrew and the Jewish religion and that he wished to leave the Soviet Union. He is now in danger of facing a show trial within the Soviet state. In the same position also is Yuly Edelshtein who, it is rumoured, is to participate in some sort of show trial with Kholmiansky. The crimes of both these individuals was their wish to express their Jewish identity and to teach and practice the Jewish religion. They had hoped to be allowed to leave the Soviet Union.

The plight of Jews in Soviet Russia today is a major human tragedy. They find themselves tied to a country which despite its own constitutional guarantees will not allow free religious and cultural expression. At the same time these Jews are being prevented from emigrating to countries that will afford them this opportunity. The plight of Soviet Jews is of deep concern not only to Jewish communities throughout the world but to a large number of other people. In a domestic context, I am aware from the response I received to this motion that it is a matter of deep concern to all Members of this House. It goes without saying that it is a matter of deep concern to all members of the small Jewish community in this country.

No one is asking for special treatment for Soviet Jews. We are merely asking that those rights which theoretically they are guaranteed be afforded to them and that those who wish to leave be permitted to do so in accordance with the international obligation of the Soviet Government as stated in the Helsinki Final Act and in the Madrid Concluding Document. That document is very explicit as to the Soviet Government's obligations in this area. It states under the heading of "Human Contacts" on page 18 that:

The participating States will favourably deal with applications relating to contacts and regular meetings on the basis of family ties, reunification of families and marriage between citizens of different States and will decide upon them in the same spirit.

Under the same heading, the document goes on to confirm that:

...the presentation or renewal of applications in these cases will not modify the rights and obligations of the applicants or of members of their families concerning inter alia employment, housing, residence status, family support, access to social, economic or educational benefits, as well as any other rights and obligations flowing from the laws and regulations of the respective participating State.

It is clear that despite being a signatory to the Helsinki Final Act and the Madrid Final Document, the Soviet Union is in flagrant breach of both those documents. It is the concern of this Dáil that the persecution and victimisation of Soviet Jews cease. The next occasion on which the Helsinki Final Act will be reviewed on an international basis is at the meeting which is to take place in Ottawa in May or June, 1985. There is a need for those representing Ireland at that meeting to emphasise that it is essential that all Governments who are parties to both of the documents concerned adhere to them and implement the human rights provisions contained in them.

It is appropriate that this motion is debated at this time, at a time when we are acting in the role of Presidency of the EC. Our Foreign Minister in replying to this debate will do so not merely as our Foreign Minister but as President of the Council of Foreign Ministers and can reply to this motion knowing that similar motions have come before other parliaments in other western democracies and indeed that a similar motion, similarly phrased, received widespread support in the European Parliament in the spring of this year. It is essential that in our dealings with the Soviet Union and at an EC level our Foreign Minister and the Foreign Ministers of the member states make representations regularly to the Government of the USSR to ensure that the fundamental rights of all Jews and other minorities in the USSR are fully respected. We should regard ourselves as having an obligation to ensure that all appropriate action is taken not only as an individual state but in the EC context to ensure that the provisions of the Helsinki Agreement are properly implemented. I hope that this debate, which has been on an all-party basis, will facilitate the Minister in the final weeks of the Irish Presidency of the EC to make clear not merely our views but the views of all member states of the Community.

Mr. Briscoe

I express my gratitude to the Government for allowing time for this motion. It is important that we as a small neutral country allow time for such a motion. I also pay tribute to the Department of Foreign Affairs who under successive Ministers have taken a keen interest in this problem and in the work at the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation. Those who have held that office have been praised by a number of European countries for their dedication and work towards the resolution of the problem and towards the achievement of the signing of the final declaration in Madrid last year.

I am aware that there are other deprived minorities in the Soviet Union and I have been associated with many protests about the infringements of their rights. I would be best remembered for my protest against the imprisonment and refusal to allow out of the country a Baptist Minister, Mr. Georgie Vins. I was the first elected Member of this House ever to be refused a visa to visit the Soviet Union to present a petition. I do not want it to go abroad that I am only concerned about my own co-religionists. I am deeply concerned about them but also about other minorities. There are tragic circumstances in many of these cases, some of which Deputy Shatter outlined, where husbands are not allowed to join wives and where people who have been lecturers in universities have been punished and are lucky to hold jobs as janitors simply because they have asked for an exit visa.

When we discuss this topic it should not be confused with Middle East conflicts. It is important to stress that it is apart from Middle East conflicts. We are talking about basic human rights. We are not attacking the Soviet Union; we are appealing to them to live up to a document which they signed.

Last year I visited Madrid in the company of Mr. Peter Archer, a member of the Labour Party who is now their spokesman for Northern Ireland, and Mr. Ivan Laurence, a member of the Conservative Party, to visit the embassies to ask them to use their influence to get the Soviet Union to sign certain parts of the document which were being completed at that stage. They were reluctant to sign parts dealing with human rights elements and the right of people to move. We visited the Austrian Ambassador, the British Ambassador, the Irish Ambassador and the Swedish and Norwegian Ambassadors.

People cannot understand why the Soviet Union do not allow people to emigrate, but the Soviet Union consider it disloyal to the state and an insult if somebody wishes to emigrate. The figures which were given show a sharp decline in the numbers who have been allowed to emigrate under the late chairman of the Soviet Union, Mr. Andropov. The former head of the KGB reduced the numbers allowed to leave to a few hundred and no progress was made under his leadership. Tragically, no progress has been made under the present leadership of Chairman Chernenko. If we who are Jews do not speak out for our co-religionists who will? We know that grave injustices are being committed against them. All we are asking is that this House, by supporting this motion, emphasises to the Soviet Union that they must allow people to live with basic human rights. There is an old saying that he who saves the life of one person saves the world. I read that in a book which I have just completed reading called Shindlers Ark. It is very difficult to speak about this book without emotion. In case people who are not co-religionists do not understand what we feel for our brethren in other parts of the world, I would just ask them to read this book and they will understand why we might appear to get somewhat overemotional. We are not overemotional.

Sometimes I have found myself asking myself "If I protest too often, will I be regarded as a crank?" I remember a friend, a very distinguished ambassador, said that when one is protesting against infringements of human rights one can never protest too many times. The Russians are people who do not like protests being made but they figure that if one waits long enough they will go away, and very often they do.

We, as a people who have endured much throughout the ages, know that we must continue to press for human rights in the Soviet Union, not just for Jews but for Baptists, Muslims, for all the other minorities, for the other Christian Churches in the Soviet Union. I always feel, when I speak here on anything like this — and I have had occasion to do so before — that probably the Irish people, next to the Jewish people, know more about what it means to be discriminated against because of one's religion. For 700 years this country withstood persecution, the people of this country were not allowed to practise their faith. They had their hedge priests. Whenever I address Jewish groups in America and talk about the similarities between the Jewish and Irish peoples, I stress these points: You cannot teach your children religion without it being an offence, without being locked up in prison, without having your religious institutions closed.

I hope we shall continue to monitor these accords or agreements. When Ireland signs its name to an accord, or a human rights document, it also carries the responsibility not alone to see that it lives up to those responsibilities but that the other signatories do also. We must remember that we are a moral voice in the world, we do have a moral conscience, that we can shake the moral consciences of other countries. The Super Powers do not have to listen to anyone but, as long as that little voice is heard crying out, saying a wrong is being committed, there will always be somebody to hear it.

I should like to express to the Minister and the Government my gratitude for having been allowed to discuss this motion. I should like to say to the Department of Foreign Affairs: thanks for the fine, great, humanitarian work they have done in this field. I should like to say to them also: thanks for the fullest co-operation we have always received any time any of us have wanted to attend any conferences where ambassadors bade us welcome, when every facility was placed at our disposal, and for the genuine concern of officials working in that division of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I should like them to know it is appreciated and to place that on record.

Finally I should say we will not give up and that this malpractice should not be allowed continue without our voices being raised every so often. There are gross infringements of this Helsinki agreement going on. I hope we will keep reminding the Russians that they are in breach of it and that any system that does not allow one's people to leave, and takes that as an insult to that system, has very much wrong with it. We would ask them to have another look at themselves and their policies in refusing exit visas to those Jews who want to join their families, co-religionists in other parts of the world as well as in Israel.

Mr. Taylor

At the outset I must declare my interest by stating that I have the honour to be the vice-chairman of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland, a body formed almost 100 years ago to represent the interests of the Jews of Ireland. Our work on that council has presented few serious problems because of the excellent relations that have always existed between the Jews of Ireland and successive Irish Governments. Over the years Irish Governments have bent over backwards to ensure that every possible need of our community, educational, social and religious, has been met, beyond the bounds of duty, having regard to the very small proportion of the population for which we account.

There is one thing I want to make absolutely clear in the context of this motion, that is that I am not in any way anti-Soviet. I do not believe that the Soviet Union is the worst country in the world. I do not, as do some people, consider that nothing that the Soviet Union does can possibly be right in any circumstances.

This motion is about human rights and there are two simple and very basic rights involved here. The first is the natural right that every person should have to leave any country, including his own, and indeed to return to that country, if he so wishes. The second is the right to practise one's own religion, to enjoy one's own culture and to use one's own language.

The Soviet Union signed Article 12 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and to return to his country. By refusing to honour that signed commitment, the Soviet Union shows contempt for international institutions. It is not that the Soviets at no time ever allowed emigration. For example, in 1972, 31,000 Jews were permitted to emigrate and, in 1979, 51,000 was the figure. However, by 1983, that figure was down to 1,300 and I believe that, for 1984, it will be considerably less than that. The reason for these differentials is that the Soviet Union made this basic human right a bargaining point in discussions with the West to obtain favoured trading status for themselves. In that process they have used their Jewish citizens as hostages. That is a role not new to the Jewish people and extends back over 1,000 years.

The fact is that the improvement or worsening of the position of Soviet Jews, from time to time, has been a barometer of relations between the Super Powers. During those years that the doors opened just a little, as they did, about 250,000 Jews in all were allowed to leave the Soviet Union over a period of between ten and 15 years. However, they left behind in the Soviet Union some 500,000 relatives who wished to join them. Approximately 380,000 of those have made a formal request to join their relatives who are in Israel and in other countries. The remainder have not applied because, just to make the application, means the immediate loss of one's employment, the loss of one's standing in the community, the loss of places at schools for one's children and being prosecuted as a parasite for being out of work.

The situation has been bad for the past year or so and continues to deteriorate. I would appeal to the Soviet rulers to lift the burden of this unjust policy so that families may be reunited. Many of those who have applied have already been waiting for very many years. During all of that time they have lived under tremendous psychological and economic pressure.

In recent months there have been reports of ever-increasing reliance by the Soviet authorities on coercion, repression and intimidation which reflects a return, in certain respects, to the norms of the Stalin period. The Head of the KGB has been given recently a newly enhanced status having been elevated to the rank of Marshal of the Soviet Union, a title once held by the notorious Beria, until his removal and execution in the aftermath of Stalin's death by the new leadership led by Krushchev.

This policy of the Soviet Government is designed to discourage Jews from applying for exit visas and maintaining contact with their families, a policy that has been pursued ruthlessly. One can only marvel at the reports of the fortitude of so many people who, despite all threats and harassment, insist on their rights. Such policies simply cannot be reconciled with the Soviet Union's obligations under the Helsinki Agreement.

A typical example of this harassment is the case of Yosef Begun. He is 51 years old and was 39 years old when, in April 1971, he first applied to emigrate to Israel. He was then an acting senior lecturer in higher mathematics at the Moscow Institute of Agricultural Production. He was immediately dismissed. He was allowed to do only menial work and was usually dismissed whenever he was arrested which happened from time to time, because he was said to be truanting from work.

Yosef Begun asked the authorities for permission to teach Hebrew and was refused permission to do so. He gave Hebrew lessons without permission privately and taught Jewish culture. To stop this the Soviet authorities arrested him, charged him with being a parasite, imprisoned him for three months and sentenced him to two years' exile in Siberia. When he was released he was refused permission to live in Moscow. Ten weeks later he was re-arrested and sentenced to three years in exile for violating residence regulations. He has been arrested, harassed by the KGB, has had his property stolen, has been vilified in public, and yet his courage has not been broken.

He has continued to appeal, to protest, to issue statements for the cause of all persecuted Soviet Jews. From November 1983 he was held incommunicado in Vladimir prison and then charged under the notorious article 70 of the Soviet criminal code, which accuses him of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. A penalty of 12 years in prison has recently been imposed on him. In justice was done once more under the Soviet system. He has been harassed and imprisoned on and off for the past 13 years and yet he is not granted his long awaited exit visa to join his family in Israel.

This is all reminiscent of a different time and age. Prisoners of conscience linger in Soviet prisons.

There is no doubt that the problem of anti-semitism in the Soviet Union has become a real and terrifying prospect. Racist propaganda is circulated with printed material of a type reminiscent of the Third Reich in Germany. I have seen specimens of some of this material which equates Zionism with Nazism and attacks people seeking exit visas to Israel as anti-Soviet subversives, conspirators and spies.

Yet the Soviet constitution — apart from firm signed international commitments like the Helsinki final act — is supposed to uphold national minorities, and since the Jewish minority is a national minority it should be recognised as such. An article in Pravda on 22 February 1972 announcing the preparations by the Central Committee of the Communist Party for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Soviet Union stated:

The USSR is the most viable and perfect form of organisation of a multinational state. The closest unity, all round blossoming and steadfast rapprochement, of all nations and nationalities, are determined by the nature of our system, and are an objective law of the development of socialism.

Tragically the facts at the present time indicate otherwise. It is estimated that there are upwards of 2 million in the Soviet Union and that even if the gates were open wide the proportion that would want to leave would be about 20 or 30 per cent.

It is a basic human right that those remaining should have the right to teach and learn their language, to enjoy their culture and practise their religion. In fact virtually all Jewish institutional life has been stopped. There are no Jewish schools, no Hebrew publications. Jewish books and prayerbooks are not available.

Other religious and ethnic minorities are also persecuted — notably the Pentecostalists and the Baptists.

In the Soviet Union the Hebrew language has no official status and those who teach it are categorised as unemployed parasites and are sent to prison as such. Religious services are often prevented, even in private homes. The Soviet Jews are the victims of the traditional religious and ethnic hatred, as well as Marxist antagonism to religion in every form. The enormous Soviet state machinery is involved in a cynical and continuous effort to harass the Jewish community, collectively and individually.

Yet principle No. 7 of the Helsinki Final Act — signed by the Soviet Union states:—

In those states in which ethnic religious or linguistic minorities exist persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language.

Article 18 states that each individual has the right:

To adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching".

One of the strengths of our democracy in Ireland is its commitment to the safeguarding of human rights and freedom of religion for all citizens, not only here in Ireland which it does, but espousing those same human rights wherever they are suppressed or endangered. To champion those basic human rights or freedoms everywhere will encourage thousands of oppressed peoples in all parts of the world to keep the flame of hope burning, even in their darkest hours, and for this reason I welcome most warmly the decision to provide time here in Dáil Éireann to debate this motion. Motions of similar intent have been adopted by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and in many of the democratic parliaments throughout the world.

I particularly welcome the fact that this motion has been moved on an all-party basis and if the motion is adopted, as I believe it will be, I would ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to call in the Soviet Ambassador and to communicate to him the feelings of the House on this subject.

Mr. G. Collins

I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting this motion. I am pleased to participate because I wish to show my concern at the plight of the people in question and their difficulties. To borrow a phrase used by my colleague, Deputy Briscoe, we should not allow these people to be a forgotten people. We get used to so many problems that after a while we become insensitive to them. That should not happen, particularly in this country, because in our own way we have so much in common with the people about whom we are concerned here. For many centuries people here were penalised because they practised their religion. They were denied human rights. They were a forgotten people for about seven centuries. They suffered to practise their religion and because they spoke their own language. Many of them left Ireland because they could not take the harassment they were being subject to. However, there was one difference in that there was no embargo on their families if they wished to follow them and could afford the cost of the passage.

Irish people should be giving a lead in this area because of our history. Those who sponsored the motion before us — I am on the list — should do everything possible to ensure that these people are not forgotten. At every opportunity in the past different Minister for Foreign Affairs have spoken out, as they should, about the fact that there are more than three million people, a figure equal to the entire population of Ireland, in the Soviet Union who would like to leave. Many of them want to join their families in other countries. We are all aware of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference. All participating states undertook to recognise and respect religious freedom and deal in a positive and humanitarian way with applications to emigrate from persons who wished to reunite with members of their families. If we are serious about putting our name to such acts then when the time is opportune we should allow those who apply to leave to do so.

I should like to thank Deputies Shatter and Taylor for the figures they gave this morning because they help us to understand the problem. It appears that up to 1970 just over 200 people were allowed out of the Soviet Union. There was some degree of relaxation between 1970 and 1980 because during that time almost 250,000 people were allowed to emigrate. Undoubtedly, many of those allowed to emigrate during that period had to leave some of their family behind and they are anxious to emigrate and be reunited with their families.

It is unfortunate that since early 1983 there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of people allowed to leave. The figure for 1983 was less than half of that for 1982 and for the first nine months of 1984 it was half of the 1983 figure. That is something we all deeply regret. I learned from Deputy Taylor that there are now approximately 400,000 applicants waiting to take their place in the queue for permission to be reunited with their families. I understand from Deputy Briscoe that the figure would be a lot higher but for the treatment meted out to those who apply. If such people are being harassed because they apply — it is accepted that they are — and have to suffer indignities, it is easy to understand why only 400,000 have applied to leave the country.

I expect the Minister for Foreign Affairs will take encouragement from today's debate. As President of the EC Foreign Ministers Council I know he will avail of the opportunity to express our concern about this matter. I hope he will highlight the plight of the people in question at the UN when he gets an opportunity. I would welcome a debate on this topic in other European parliaments, similar to the debate which took place in the European Parliament. If such debates take place the hand of the Foreign Ministers Council will be strengthened.

In many parts of the world problems arise that we should not allow slip into the darkness or haze. At every opportunity we should highlight these matters. One matter that always comes to mind is the invasion of Afghanistan. That took place at a time when we were enjoying Christmas festivities. That small nation was overrun but now we do not hear much about it. That is a shame. That matter can be raised again today in the debate on EC. At every opportunity when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs — the present Minister has also followed this line — I highlighted such incidents so that they would not be forgotten.

We cannot afford to sit back in regard to such matters, especially in Ireland because of our history and our affinity with those who practise the Jewish faith. I mean that sincerely. We should understand their problems more than anybody else. They have understood us and there have always been close ties between us. In a short time we will be playing host to the President of Israel. He will be a welcome visitor to Ireland and I look forward to the occasion not just because he is President of Israel but because he is an Irishman, a Dubliner. He lived here until he was 19 years of age and we are proud of that fact.

I was glad to have had an opportunity to participate in this debate and I hope it will awaken a greater interest in the plight of the many people who do not want anything other than to live a normal life with their families. The debate should encourage the Soviet Union to relax in their policy towards such people and be more lenient to those who want to join their families. Those people do not wish to change the system in the Soviet Union. They would not be able if they did and would be foolish to try. They want to live a normal life like ordinary human beings and no more. Anything we can do to enlighten the Soviet Government would be welcomed by those people. We should play our small part in that regard.

Mr. Skelly

I was glad to put my name to the motion which is an all-party motion. Most of the 400,000 Jewish people anxious to leave the Soviet Union to rejoin their family but prevented from doing so are relatives of the 260,000 who have already left that country. The plea by those people is very heart-rending. We are talking about people who are separated from their loved ones, people who put the family and the love of children at the highest level. As a former emigrant I can say that had I been refused permission to leave Canada and return to Ireland I would have been very unhappy and my family would have been. Jews in the Soviet Union should be accorded total freedom, but from my reading of the matter that does not obtain. They do not have freedom to practise their culture or religion, to participate in the arts, education or benefit economically. They are not permitted to play their full part in the life of the Soviet Union.

We are talking about a law-abiding supportive humane people who contributed a great deal to the history of the world and to the advance of civilisation, a people who suffered so much and were victimised so often and so wrongly, culminating in the holocaust, a sacred word not to be written about or discussed but always to be meditated upon and never to be forgotten. We are talking about a people who value life, live it to the full and derive the maximum from opportunities offered. It must be to the advantage of the nation in which they reside that they contribute to the full. The contribution of our small Jewish congregation to the life of this nation is out of proportion to their size.

In the Soviet Union families have been broken up and forced to live in different countries because of this unfair system. This has caused grief to families who wish to stay together. It is destructive of the happiness of life and at times it is almost too much to bear. But in my view it is a bigger sin when people are prevented from exercising their freedom of choice, freedom of career, freedom to choose where to live and when they are refused access to the social, economic and educational benefits of a country. Life outside work is vital to any religious people. To prevent people using their abilities to the full by restricting their educational opportunities is a form of imprisonment. A man should be allowed to find his own level of achievement and every man should have the same opportunities.

What I find very worrying is the story behind the statistics published in the bulletins from the Soviet Union. These people have no freedom to choose, they are not allowed to accept invitations to emigrate and, on top of that, they suffer harassment and, lately, arrests. This is a change in the method of persecution of Jews who wish to leave the Soviet Union. I am tempted to remind Members who showed sympathy with and solidarity for our fellow men in the Soviet Union of the attitude they adopted here last night when we were discussing the supergrass system, recently in the Criminal Justice Bill, and now in the criminal code of the Soviet Union. Nobody is attacking the Soviet Union but in my view they need not fear that very large numbers will leave their country. As we experienced in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, enough people will stay because they love their country.

We have read of drugs and firearms being planted in the homes of Soviet Jews. This is seriously affecting the liberty of these people. I am not sure if Irish hypocrisy will help the Soviet Jews, the Northern Nationalists or Loyalists, or whether our double standards will encourage the Soviets to relent in this instance but I hope the extensive lists of cases involving Soviet Jews which I have been reading in our magazines and newspapers in the last few months is not an indication that the situation is worsening for these people.

We should voice our protests through the Minister on the veiled attack on the purity of the Jewish religion by the suggestion that drugs are an inherent part of the Jewish culture. This has been suggested at some of the cases tried recently in the Soviet Union. This is an alarming trend when one remembers how these people were persecuted in the past. These people show great courage by going on hunger strike in such an atmosphere knowing that such a move will not gain the sympathy of the authorities and as there are such a small number of people involved, the impact of their protests will be very small indeed.

People outside the Soviet Union who live in comparative freedom should protest and make their views known in the strongest possible way to help the minorities in that state. These people are discriminated against when they are looking for jobs. They are downgraded all the time and the majority of them are unemployed. This is cruel, it is a form of imprisonment because even in Ireland, where people find it very difficult to get jobs, one has the choice of looking for work, and has a 50-50 chance of being successful. It is easy to see how one could feel despair if one's job is taken away and one is accused of being a parasite and living off the state. If one adds to this trumped up charges, it is easy to see that it could become impossible to live in peace in such an atmosphere.

I support this motion and the unselfish plea made by Deputy Shatter. He did not ask for special status for the Jewish population in the Soviet Union. He was merely looking for the entitlements and the rights of Soviet Jewry. The USSR Government would be admired if they made a decision to grant permission for Soviet Jewry to leave the country if they decided to do so even though it is regarded as an insult to leave. I suspect, however, that the Soviet Jewry are being used as a pawn in a game between East and West and that is probably why pressure is put on them. They are the scapegoats in this unhappy story.

When permission is refused and compounded by a further refusal of freedom to advance in education, economic or social status, employment and housing, that amounts to a form of persecution, and that is why I believe that Soviet Jewry are being used as a pawn in the game between East and West. I plead with the Soviet Union not to use a small number of people who are disadvantaged by the fact that so many of them have been allowed out while the rest are left behind. Those who were left behind must have hoped that they would be united in a place of their choice, and it was particularly cruel that the barriers were pulled down after some of them had left. I ask the Minister to make representations to have the situation eased.

Proinsias De Rossa

I admit that I entered this debate with some trepidation in view of the virtual agreement that exists among the Members who have already spoken. Before dealing with the motion, however, I should like to make a few preliminary points regarding the Helsinki Final Act. During the week I attempted to get copies of this agreement but the Government have not published copies despite the fact that the agreement specifically urges parties to the agreement to promote the Helsinki Final Act among their own people. That is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government who are a signatory to the Helsinki Final Act.

The initiation of this debate is a breakthrough in regard to the terms in which business in the Dáil is dealt with. Motions of this nature should be discussed in the House and foreign affairs should be debated much more often.

Deputy Mac Giolla and I have a motion on the Order Paper for some weeks concerning the situation in South Africa and the protests being pursued in Dunnes Stores, Dublin. I would welcome the support of any Deputies who would care to pen their names to that motion and perhaps there would then be some hope of debating it. In South Africa 21 million black people are discriminated against by law by a minority of whites who run the country. That also deserves our attention and I hope it will soon reach the floor of this House for debate. I welcome the initiative taken in having this motion put down and debated here today because it is a breakthrough and I hope it will be the first of many debates in the area of foreign affairs.

Mr. Briscoe

On a point of order, this is an all-party motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Briscoe

It is a point of information.

Proinsias De Rossa

It was mentioned that this was an all-party motion. I was listening to the contributions on the monitor. Unfortunately, the proposers of the motion did not approach Deputy Mac Giolla or myself to see if we would be prepared to support this motion. We would have welcomed discussions on the form which this motion would take because we recognise that there is a problem of alienation of Jews in the Soviet Union. However, we do not go along with the terms of the motion as put forward because it is an over-statement and the case made to support it has not been proved. There are obviously two sides to every story and no case has been made for the defence. For that reason the motion is clearly not an all-party motion and we were not invited to participate in its formulation.

I am very conscious of the history and tragedy of the Jewish people throughout the world. They have been victims of pogrom and oppression on the basis of their religious faith for as long as their faith has been in existence. I am also very conscious of the fact that they have been the victims of genocide and that six million Jews were slaughtered during World War II by Fascist regimes. It is, therefore, bewildering to see the Jewish state of Israel involved in the oppression of minorities, the Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians. The Jewish people suffered so much oppression that it is puzzling that they should now be involved — not all of them — in a policy of discrimination against minorities in Israel. That is unacceptable, and on a number of occasions in this House I have spoken about my concern in that regard. Unfortunately because of remarks that were made in this House on a previous occasion I have to make a distinction between my concern about the policy of the Israeli Government, my opposition to that policy and my detestation of anti-Semitism and of any form of discrimination on the basis of a person's race or religion. It goes against everything I believe in, and I wish to make that clear here today.

I believe and accept that there is a problem of alienation. That word is in common use in our own society and culture these days in relation to people in Northern Ireland and also in the South who find themselves at odds with the Government of their state. However, I think that the case that has been made here this morning and the case that is made concerning the USSR is in many instances tinged with a high level of anti-Sovietism. I heard Deputy Taylor deny that he is in any way anti-Soviet, and I accept and welcome that.

The case has been made that Jews in the Soviet Union are completely oppressed, are denied any rights and denied the facilities to practise their religion or to learn the Hebrew language. I have here some figures from an official Soviet source which to some extent at least refutes the assertion that all Jews in the Soviet Union are oppressed. I will go through those figures very quickly.

Out of a population of more than 270 million people in the Soviet Union there are, I understand, 1.8 million people who have declared themselves Jews, that is, approximately 0.7 per cent of the population. I understand that 5.2 per cent are engaged in cultural activities, 6.5 per cent in literature and the press, 3.4 per cent in medicine and 6.7 per cent in the legal profession. Clearly that is a representation way above the size of the population of Jews in the Soviet Union when compared to the population as a whole. That would not indicate to me there is deliberate or complete oppression of Jews in the Soviet Union.

There is a further figure of 300 Jewish students in higher education for every 10,000 Jews in the Soviet Union while the corresponding figure in respect of students of all nationalities in higher education is 187. That shows that there is almost double the number of Jews in higher education than the ordinary population as a whole. Again, that disabuses the claim that there is total and outright discrimination against Jews.

Religion in the Soviet Union is a private matter, and the State has no involvement in it, as I understand their Constitution. At the same time, there are 200 synagogues in the Soviet Union as well as many prayer houses. These statistics undermine to my mind at least the claim that there is total opposition to and oppression of Jews in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Taylor

The Deputy knows what they say about statistics.

Proinsias De Rossa

Of course I do. However, we have to accept there are two sides to every story. I am simply putting forward my views on this matter and I am indicating that I do not believe there is total oppression of Jews in the Soviet Union. I should like to quote a letter which appeared in the English language Soviet Weekly on 12 May 1984. It was written by a person named Abe Wolffe from Birmingham. He was reporting on a visit he made to the Soviet Union. He said he was a Jew and he was interested in the way Jews were being treated in that country. I will not read the whole letter but it is available if anyone wishes to look at it. Some of his comments were as follows:

I visited the Moscow Synagogue on the Saturday prior to the Festival of Passover. At the service there, I found some 200-250 men and women worshippers.

I had a few words with the Rabbi who invited me to meet him next day, Sunday.

The Deputy has not time to make it.

Proinsias De Rossa

I appreciate that. I am entitled, and hope that I shall be permitted to make a case. We are, after all, in a democratic assembly and Deputies should not be attempting to prevent me from expressing my views.

Mrs. Barnes

I am glad to be here to support his motion this morning. Like the other Deputies, I welcome the fact that time has been given in this House to a debate on foreign affairs and on the part that we should be playing in world politics. I have spoken out strongly against the policies of the United States when I felt that it was appropriate to do so. I shall certainly also speak out volubly against the policies of the Soviet Union when I feel that it is right and appropriate to do so. That is why I welcome this opportunity.

The denial of civil rights by any power to any group of people must be condemned totally. We must have eternal vigilance with regard to attempts to remove the right of movement, of speech, of practising one's religion as a policy of any government. It is a particularly emotional experience to speak regarding the history of the Jewish people who suffered centuries of oppression and denial of their rights and not only that but genocide practised against them, not just in recent years but going back over the centuries. It leads one to wonder sometimes what this human race is all about, that there are structured, in-built, totally single-minded attacks on these people's living conditions and even on their lives by so many groups in so many parts of this world. That is why it is important to speak out on behalf of Soviet Jewry today.

There is evidence that there are denials of rights to the Jewish people in the Soviet Union. Very openly and visibly there is a denial of access to emigration, of permission to leave the Soviet Union to join their families. As Deputy Skelly has said, it is particularly cruel that when it was politically advantageous or was Government policy, in certain cases the Jewish people were allowed to emigrate and then, when it suited the political game not to do so, the barricades came down again. There was cruelty, particularly in the Jewish tradition where family is fundamental and total in the religious and cultural sense and, indeed, as a means of arming themselves against the vicissitudes of fortune which have visited them down through the years, in not allowing members of the family to leave to join the other members. Their expectations may have been raised over the years and they could have been used as chess pieces to be given promises, punished or imprisoned, according to the thinking or the policies of the time. We are talking about human beings and particularly about human rights. It is good that we talk about the denial of human rights regardless of the ideologies of the groups attempting to deny them.

I take Deputy De Rossa's point that in a debate there should be balance and both sides should be shown. However, there are some points I would make before going on to a general discussion of the motion. I would agree with Deputy De Rossa that we should all have a copy of the Helsinki Agreement and use it as part and parcel of our debates here on foreign affairs. That agreement defined the right to emigrate for family re-unification. The Soviet Union at the moment are denying that right and contravening the Helsinki Agreement. In this motion we should ask that that agreement be recognised and implemented.

Deputy De Rossa said that there is not an overall repression of Jews in the Soviet Union or an outright discrimination against them. There are subtleties here. We have not the same freedom of communication with the Soviet Union as we have, for instance, with the United States, warts and all, which is something I particularly approve of with regard to the United States. There is a freedom of access which allows one to freely criticise them and I welcome that. Any government which denies that right are cutting off so much of the development of their people and of world opinion. It also shows an insecurity and feeling of inferiority which is very worrying. We do not have the same access to information or freedom of communication regarding the Soviet Union, and that is something we all accept. But we would wish otherwise.

It is fair to say that, of course, one can quote statistics and there are successful Jews carrying on professions at a high level in the Soviet Union. The problem starts when they wish to practise openly, to organise their religion within the Soviet Union, or to emigrate. That is where the denial of rights may be found. If one stays within the system and does not wish in any way to depart from it, evidently one is accepted. What civil rights are all about is the right to dissent, or to practise one's religion and the right to leave a country, particularly to join one's family. They are two very basic rights and nobody in the civil liberties context could deny that.

Imperfect as the democratic system is, democratic countries want that system. In the same way I would grant the right to Communist states to run their affairs as they want to do, as they see fit. For human beings to survive, develop and have freedom, they must be allowed their civil rights. Many "isms" which have been created in the name of freedom, to the detriment, death and devastation of people, are still lauded. However, the only freedom we should be discussing is the freedom of the individual in a nonviolent and developed way to be allowed to exercise his or her choice. If we are striving for world freedom, regardless of ideology, that must be a fundamental part of it and that is really what we are discussing today.

We are not quoting political platitudes on political platforms. We are asking that the individual be allowed to exercise his or her choice and to maintain his or her own culture. Ireland should know all about that. We must remember the huge psychological problems, apart from the practical ones, that our race suffered when we were denied our civil rights. As a woman particularly — another section discriminated against — I can appreciate the feelings of total alienation and isolation when discrimination and segregation, are practised and particularly when freedom of choice is denied. It is important that we should discuss this motion this morning and ask our Minister to use all his influence while we still have the Presidency of the EC in the European forum.

This morning the Taoiseach referred to progress hopefully being made with regard to East-West relations. My first thought was about arms because that is what can wipe us all out. Listening to the debate now I thought what we should be striving for as well, apart from arms reduction, is dialogue and agreement on a level of civilised behaviour and freedom for people regardless of where or under what political regime they live. To ask for less means we are not taking responsibility for what we cherish. We know what a denial of freedom did to the nation. No one denies that there are large numbers of Jewish people in the Soviet Union who believe they do not have freedom of choice and are discriminated against. They ask for the basic right to leave the country and join their families who have already left.

Without getting involved in ideological struggles, what we are asking for is on the most human, responsible and political of levels. Deputy Collins suggested that we should take this to other Governments in Europe. Deputy De Rossa mentioned the Council of Europe. I am aware that quite recently the Council of Europe had a motion before them much along the lines of the motion being debated here. They deplored what was happening to the Jewish people in the Soviet Union. There is a big effort being made with regard to détente and East-West relations. Without wishing to exacerbate any feelings of division — we are one world and one Europe — I hope Europe will continue to express its grave concern, first of all on a human level at what is happening to the Jewish people in the Soviet Union and, secondly, on a political level. Hopefully we will be able to move forward and use our collective influence to ensure that the Jewish people in the Soviet Union have what we consider is the right of everyone: freedom of choice, movement, expression and culture. No more, no less and, my God, they deserve it.

Minister of State at the Department of Labour (Mr. G. Birminghan)

I intervene to say that I found the contribution made by Deputy De Rossa quite extraordinary. It is peculiar that in a debate which was supposed to centre on the plight of the minority in the Soviet Union, a contribution requires a Deputy to express his opinion on the policies pursued by the Israeli Government and State. I find that peculiar and in some sense unhealthy. Deputy De Rossa expressed the hope that there would be other opportunities in this House to debate other matters of foreign policy. That is a good idea. He said he hoped there would be a debate in the future in which members would be given an opportunity to express their views on apartheid. That is also a good idea. He said he thought his contribution was important to present a balance and that there were two sides to everything. I do not accept that. I hope that if an opportunity is given to the House to express its views on apartheid Members will be united in their opposition to it and will accept that there are not two sides to it. The interests of a balanced debate do not require any Member to come into the House and justify the way in which the South African Government treat their black citizens.

This debate is not enhanced by an attempt to justify the way in which the Soviet Union treats its minorities. I do not believe such a pretence does any credit to the party of which the Deputy is a member. It is in stark contrast with the claim made by that party that they are concerned with issues of humanitarianism and oppression in other parts of the world. It is strange that there are people in this country who believe justice and injustice are divisible, that one can turn a blind eye to injustice in certain parts of the world and that somehow oppression where it takes place under a regime of a particular ideological hue can be ignored and that all our concerns can be centred on other regimes which are acceptable targets because we do not like their ideology.

If our concern for humanitarianism means anything, we speak out clearly and unequivocally wherever we see injustice, without pretence and sham. We speak out against the regime in South Africa and speak out, with equal clarity, against what is happening in the Soviet Union.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. This motion before the Dáil appropriately takes as its reference points the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Helsinki Final Act. The Declaration, which is a United Nations instrument, is a very comprehensive statement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is important to remember, in the context of the debate, that the 35 States participating in the CSCE process — all the states of Europe, except Albania, together with the United States and Canada — have signed the Helsinki Final Act. They are not only committed to implementing the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and the Madrid Concluding Document but they are also committed to acting in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Helsinki Final Act and the Concluding Document of the Madrid Review meeting of the CSCE are not treaties. They are not legally binding. Nonetheless, they represent a political commitment by the participating States to give effect to their provisions and the political credibility of the participating states is measured by the extent to which they implement these provisions. There are no arrangements to enforce CSCE provisions. The CSCE process relies instead on a review of implementation to which every participating State has the right to contribute.

In the area of human rights, the Final Act provides that the participating states will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also explicitly mentions freedom of religion, the rights of national minorities and the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights and duties in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, very important words.

The Final Act also devotes a great deal of attention to the question of human contacts, particularly the reunification of families and marriages between citizens of different states. The participating states have committed themselves to dealing in a positive and humanitarian spirit with applications from people who wish to be reunited with members of their family. At Madrid it was agreed, specifically, to decide on such applications "in normal practice, within six months". That is very important in the context of the debate we are having here today.

The deterioration in the Soviet Union's record in the area of human contacts would appear to have coincided with the general downturn in East-West relations in recent years. It may be the case, although this is necessarily speculative, that changes for the better are more likely to come about when East-West relations, and in particular US-Soviet relations, are functioning well and are characterised by an absence of confrontation. This consideration cannot, however, excuse the Soviet record of recent years. Between 1976 and 1980 thousands of Soviet Jews obtained emigration visas each month. According to the information available to me, not more than 60 to 100 authorisations per month have been granted since 1980. The information available suggests that large numbers of applications for emigation to join family members abroad have been refused, and that a great many more are awaiting consideration. The restrictive attitude of the Soviet authorities has also borne heavily on other minority groups. For example, there has been a marked decline in recent years in the number of authorisations to leave the Soviet Union granted to ethnic Germans. It is quite clear that the attitude of the Soviet authorities is not compatible with the politically binding commitments which the Soviet Union entered into at Helsinki in 1975 and Madrid in 1983.

There has been no recent improvement in the Soviet Union's regrettable performance in the area of human rights in general. Repression of religious believers continues to be a feature of the Soviet system, and repression of Catholic clergy in Lithuania has been stepped up since the beginning of 1983. The Soviet authorities have systematically suppressed groups set up to monitor the implementation of the Helsinki and Madrid provisions. The text of the Helsinki Final Act is reported to have become almost unobtainable in the Soviet Union. In that regard I understand that Deputy De Rossa said that it was not available here. Admittedly some years ago 5,000 copies of it were printed and if any Deputy in the House has problems in getting a copy, let him contact my Department and I will be happy to see that he gets it. In the meantime I will investigate the possibility of having more of them printed.

While Jewish citizens of the Soviet Union are circumscribed in their efforts to emigrate, they are offered no improvement in their possibilities of giving expression to their particular culture. The campaign against the study of Hebrew seems to be continuing. Freedom of expression is as limited as before. The conclusion one is forced to draw is that the situation of Dr. Andrei Sakharov and his wife Yelena Bonner is only the most visible part of an overall picture characterised by systematic denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The case of the Sakharovs is one which symbolises the repression of many others, whose names may never be known to us, who may be Jewish or Christian, who may come from Latvia, from the Ukraine or from Russia. Recent deaths of imprisoned dissidents due, apparenlty, to inadequate health care, underscore the continuing deterioration in Soviet performance in the area of human rights in general.

As I have indicated already, the fact that the Soviet Union in signing the Helsinki Final Act has committed itself to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that Ireland is also a signatory of the Final Act, gives us, like other CSCE participating states, a legitimate interest in the Soviet record in this matter. This country has availed of the opportunities offered by CSCE meetings, where implementation of the Final Act comes under review, to express concern at the shortcomings which are apparent in that record. The Irish delegation did this on several occasions, for example, in the course of the CSCE Madrid Meeting which met from 1980 to 1983. Any Irish contributors to that drew attention to these facts, as I did when I addressed the final meeting in September of last year, and in my statement there I referred to the treatment suffered by members of the Jewish community and other religious minorities in the Soviet Union in recent years. That meeting had, of course, other purposes than a simple review of implementation. It also offered the opportunity to build usefully on certain provisions of the Final Act. Ireland, with the other member states of the European Community, worked actively for the adoption of more specific provisions on human rights. The provision in the Concluding Document of the Madrid meeting that participating states will "take the action necessary" to ensure religious freedom can be considered a useful advance, in so far as it extends the area of international consensus on this subject and provides a yardstick by which the practice of participating states in this area can be judged. In the same way, the provision for the consideration of applications for family reunification "in normal practice, within six months" must be seen as a step forward.

The areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and human contacts, are ones where concerted action by the ten member states of the European Community, through the process of European political co-operation, is of considerable importance. Through concerted action by the Ten the views of individual states are amplified and given greater weight.

The Ten, including Ireland, will continue, as necessary, to draw attention to failure by CSCE participating states to implement commitments entered into at Helsinki and Madrid. For example, a CSCE meeting of experts will take place in Ottawa next May, on the specific question of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in all their aspects, as embodied in the Final Act. A further meeting of experts will be held in Berne in 1986, this time to discuss "the development of contacts among persons, institutions and organisations" which will, of course, include family reunification. The Ottawa meeting offers the opportunity to highlight the importance the Ten attach to the question of human rights within the CSCE framework. At that meeting the Ten will seek a meaningful dialogue with all participating states with a view to arriving, if possible, at elements of understanding which could help to advance the cause of human rights. They will also contribute to the discussions on the degree to which participating states have observed and implemented the human rights provisions of the Final Act. The Berne meeting in 1986 may be expected to offer similar opportunities in regard to the question of human contacts.

In concluding my remarks on this motion I want to make clear that we and our partners in the Ten do not criticise the Soviet Union's record in the areas I have mentioned for reasons of emotional gratification, or merely to score points. We do so because we believe that the credibility of the CSCE process itself is put at risk in the eyes of the peoples of the participating states, when some participating states are seen to disregard or ignore the commitments they have entered into. This country desires friendly and co-operative relations with the Soviet Union, a country whose history, culture, and very considerable achievements we respect. The CSCE process was designed to bring about more secure, more co-operative and more humane relations between the participating states and their peoples. We and our partners in the Ten are determined to pursue these goals through the CSCE process, and to go on seeking constructive, comprehensive and realistic dialogue with the Soviet Union. I hope that all other signatories to the Helsinki Final Act will continue to pursue those goals.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 6 Dec 1984

Soviet Union Jewish Community: Motion.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Dec 1984