Votes Nos. 44 and 45 may be discussed together.
Estimates, 1985. - Vote 44: Foreign Affairs (Revised Estimate).
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £21,577,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1985, 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.
As is customary, I propose that the Vote for Foreign Affairs and the Vote for International Co-operation be debated together. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, will speak later on his area of responsibility.
The sum proposed for the Vote for Foreign Affairs is £21,557,000. 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, 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.
In presenting the Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs, it would be useful if I were to try to do three things. First, to speak about some striking features of the international situation at present; secondly, to examine the implications for Irish foreign policy particularly with regard to the European Community and European Political Co-operation; and, thirdly, to review the current and evolving situation with regard to Anglo-Irish relations and developments in Northern Ireland.
In speaking about the international situation generally or in reviewing developments and future trends it is seldom easy to avoid a discursive and apparently abstract account which may give rise to the impression that international relations and its content and conduct are removed from the average person and his or her daily concerns. In an effort to illustrate some of the concrete realities of international relations and their impact let me read a list of names: Jean Donovan, Yvonne Fletcher, Anthony Berry, Fr. Niall O'Brien, Aidan Walsh, Fr. John Kingston, Allyn Conwell and Robert Stethem. Some or all of these names will be familiar to Deputies but it would be useful if I were to put each in context and point to their relevance to the subject matter of today's debate.
Jean Donovan was a young American girl and a student of UCC who was murdered in EI Salvador in 1980 together with a number of American nuns and lay workers. Yvonne Fletcher was the young woman police constable who was shot dead outside the Libyan Embassy in London last year. Anthony Berry, a British politician, was one of the five victims who died in the Brighton bomb incident of last year. Fr. Niall O'Brien was and is a familiar face and voice which came to be known throughout the country during the period of his detention and trial in the Philippines. Aidan Walsh is an Irishman working with the United Nations Relief and Work Agency in Lebanon who was abducted and later released. Fr. John Kingston was abducted by the rebel UNITA forces in Angola and also thankfully released. Allyn Conwell was the man whom his fellow prisoners elected as their spokesman during the recent hijacking incident in Beirut and Robert Stethem was the US Navy diver murdered by hijackers in Beirut and dumped onto the tarmac.
I have listed these names because each is that of a victim of what seems to have become an increasingly dangerous feature of international life — the extent to which international anarchy threatens order and terrorism threatens political dialogue, negotiation and compromise.
In essence, the basic issues in international relations today, behind all the complexity and apparent contradictions, can be starkly stated. Which is to prevail — international anarchy or international order, the rule of force or the rule of law, might or right, confrontation or co-operation, the terrorist and the tyrant or the elected representatives of the people?
For Ireland and for Irish foreign policy under every Government there has never been the slightest doubt about where we stand, where our interests lie and what the people of this country wish to see their Government and their representatives abroad uphold and promote. We believe in the rule of law, in co-operation and international solidarity not merely from a conviction that these ideals and aims are the foundation for a stable and decent international order and desirable in themselves as ends. We believe in them also because for a small country with a vulnerable and open economy, a young and growing population and an historic conflict on our island and between us and our nearest neighbour to resolve — international stability, respect for the rule of law, co-operation and dialogue are the necessary means and the only means by which we can and should defend and promote our interests and achieve our aims nationally and internationally.
I have made these points at the outset not only because I believe they are a relevant backdrop to what I wish to say in detail about our international relations over the past year and in the period ahead but also because they may serve to illustrate the spirit and purpose with which these relations are conducted by the Government, the Foreign Service, Development Aid officers, Irish troops in peacekeeping and truce observation missions overseas and the hundreds of Irishmen and women working abroad as volunteers and aid workers and missionaries. The day to day work of these Irishmen and women, whether in our Embassy in Beirut or Tehran, in UNIFIL in South Lebanon, with UNDOF on the Golan Heights, at the UN in New York or in the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, in development aid projects in Africa or in negotiations in Brussels or London are part and parcel of a consistent effort by this country to play a useful role among the nations.
In speaking about the general international situation and the main activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs over the last year I begin by recalling that about this time last year, when the Estimates for my Department were presented, Ireland was about to assume its Presidency of the Council of Minister of the European Communities. The principal concern of our foreign policy, therefore, during the latter part of 1984 was to conduct our Presidency effectively and efficiently. Our aim was to try to ensure that when we handed over the job to Italy the tasks which we had undertaken had either been brought to a positive conclusion or to a point where their successful completion could be prosecuted by the succeeding Presidency.
By and large we discharged our responsibilities comprehensively and well. I would like to single out three particular issues in the political field which I regard as important achievements. The first of these related directly to the problem of terrorism. In September last, in the wake of a number of incidents, including that which occurred at the Libyan Peoples' Bureau in London, to which I have already referred, the Ten agreed on concerted measures to deal with the growing problem created by the abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunities for terrorist ends.
Recently, we have seen new outbreaks of international terrorism, hijackings of aircraft, most notably the TWA aircraft held in Beirut, the abduction and holding hostage of passengers and crews, the murder of a passenger as well as the bombing of the international airports in Frankfurt and in Tokyo. In the latter instance, the bomb concerned might well have exploded on board an aircraft with devastating consequences. It is Ireland's intention and that of its partners to continue to co-operate fully with international efforts to deal with this growing menace.
We should be in no doubt about the threat which air piracy, hijacking and terrorism impose. Nor should we have any compunction either in insisting that the taking of innocent hostages and their use as bargaining counters cannot be condoned in any way. The remaining American, French and British hostages held in Lebanon must be released unconditionally and without delay. Ireland together with its partners will do all it can to contribute to this end.
We must also be willing to face the truth about terrorism summed up in the saying: "Those to whom evil is done do evil in return". It should therefore be acknowledged that the phenomenon of international terrorism will never be fully extirpated unless the substantive political issues and injustices which too often are at its roots and cause it to grow and flourish are themselves addressed. This is true in the Middle East, in Central America, in Southern Africa and, indeed, nearer home.
A second major task of the Irish Presidency was to prepare and organise, on behalf of the Ten and the Community, a meeting in Costa Rica of 21 states comprised of five countries of Central America — Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua — the four Contadora countries, Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, the ten member states of the Community, and Spain and Portugal.
The Costa Rica meeting was an unprecedented encounter between Central America and Europe. Its essential aim was to try to give effect to the basic approach of the Community countries to the problems of the region, that is, to help to create conditions in which the conflicts in the region can be resolved peacefully and its manifold economic and social problems tackled on the basis of co-operation and international solidarity. That meeting was successful, not only in emphasising the Ten's support, and that of Spain and Portugual, for the peace process but also in preparing the way for negotiations aimed at the conclusion of a co-operation agreement between the Community and the countries of Central America.
I hope that a follow-up ministerial conference, at which a co-operation agreement could be signed, will take place before the end of this year. I know that the Contadora process has experienced severe difficulties but I remain convinced that the approach embodied in the Contadora process continues to offer the best hope of reaching a solution to the problems of the region. We hope that the Central American and Contadora countries will redouble their efforts to arrive at a comprehensive agreement. We will continue to do whatever we can to support these efforts.
Thirdly, it fell to Ireland to organise and host a second important political — economic dialogue during our Presidency — that between the ASEAN countries and the Ten and the Community which took place in Dublin last November.
Both the Ten and the ASEAN countries were pleased with the successful outcome of this meeting too. South-East Asia is a region assuming increasing political and economic importance. It is, therefore, of interest to the Ten and the Community to develop an institutionalised and co-operative dialogue with that region.
Last year, at this time, Ireland and its partners in the Ten were emphasising the urgent need for a resumption of the strategic and political dialogue between the Soviet Union and the United States. Ireland and its partners have continued to emphasise the need for dialogue, and wherever and whenever possible to work themselves in their contacts with Eastern European countries and the United States to this end. As the House knows, the strategic arms talks between the Soviet Union and the United States resumed earlier this year in Geneva in a new and complex form embracing negotiations on outer space, intercontinental strategic missiles and intermediate range nuclear forces.
It is far too early to say whether these negotiations can be brought to a successful outcome. Nonetheless, we must welcome the fact that they are taking place and earnestly hope that they will be pursued with patience and perseverance with the manifest aim of succeeding. The political dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union is also showing some hopeful signs. Yesterday the long awaited summit between President Reagan and President Gorbachev was set for November next.
The dialogue and relationship between these two great powers is crucial to the success of a whole range of international negotiations and activities. Even if we do not participate directly or indirectly in the negotiations between the superpowers, each of us has a stake in their outcome.
There are, of course, negotiations between East and West in which Ireland has participated. In Stockholm, we are involved in the painstaking and patient work of the Conference on Disarmament in Europe. Earlier this year in Ottawa, we took part in a forum on human rights in which the implementation of the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act was reviewed and efforts made to promote greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout Europe.
Later this year, in September, we shall participate in an important review meeting on the functioning and future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ireland has long been an advocate of non-proliferation and it will be recalled that the original United Nations Resolution proposing the Non-Proliferation Treaty some 20 years ago was an Irish initiative. There are now more than 120 parties to this treaty, which is a clear demonstration that the majority of non-nuclear states continue in their commitment to refrain from the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
It remains our view that the nuclear powers and, in particular, the Soviet Union and the United States have a special responsibility to curb and reduce nuclear armaments and to lead the way towards nuclear disarmament. Moreover, their commitment to implementation of the non-Proliferation Treaty is a prerequisite to progress towards more stable foundations for international peace and security.
I wish to speak briefly in regard to a number of regional conflicts and our approach to them. The Middle East continues to be a major source of international conflict and tension. Ireland, not least because of the presence of our troops serving with UNIFIL, has followed closely the rapidly changing situation there. Despite the immense difficulties and tragic circumstances which afflict large numbers of people in that part of the world, there are grounds for some optimism for the future. In the past few weeks Israel has completed the withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon though it continues to maintain military advisers in a zone in Southern Lebanon.
Along with our partners in the Ten we have taken a consistent position in favour of the restoration of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. Regrettably the occasion of the Israeli withdrawal has not led to major improvements in the internal affairs of Lebanon. The country is more than ever torn by internal conflicts and to a certain extent constrained by external pressures from its neighbours. As a result the solution of the Lebanese crisis cannot be divorced from an overall settlement of the Middle East question.
The intercommunal violence which has beset the country in recent months has further polarised an already deeply divided country. Ireland, in common with many other countries, has appealed to the Lebanese Government and the other authorities in Beirut, for restraint and a return to the search for a peaceful solution of the problem.
On a broader plane recently there have been developments in the search for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which give grounds for hope of real progress. The current intensification of activity dates particularly from the signature of the PLO-Jordan accord in February. Building on this agreement President Mubarak of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan have actively canvassed international support for the opening of negotiations between Israel and a joint PLO-Jordanian delegation. The formulation of these proposals and their development have required courage and have entailed risks for those involved.
In discussions among the Ten we have supported the argument that the latest developments deserve a positive response. The increasing interest of the PLO in a negotiated settlement, as evidenced by the PLO-Jordanian accord, is a most helpful development. Our belief is that these latest moves can pave the way for meaningful negotiations between the parties concerned which would, in turn, lead to the kind of compromises which such a deep-rooted problem as the Arab-Israeli conflict requires. Ireland's wish is to see a fair and durable peace established between the Arab states and Israel and a just solution of the Palestinian question. We remain convinced that the principles set out in the Venice Declaration of 1980 are essential for such a settlement.
The war between Iran and Iraq continues with no sign of a let up. The duration, ferocity and scale of casualties bring to mind the horror and stalemate which characterised the First World War. Yet despite the enormous losses in human life and the mediation efforts of many organisations, and countries, the international community has so far failed to put an end to this war. We have publicly stated on many occasions our desire to see a ceasefire, withdrawal to internationally recognised frontiers and a negotiated settlement of the conflict. We have also indicated our support for peace efforts on these lines and in particular for the efforts of the UN Secretary-General. At a practical level we have contributed officers to the United Nations Investigation Teams set up in 1984 with the agreement of both belligerents to monitor attacks on civilian population centres.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan continues to exact a heavy toll on the population within the country, and in view of the large exodus of refugees, an increasing burden on neighbouring countries. The Government welcome the negotiations which are being conducted by the UN Special Representative aimed at finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. But we cannot be overly optimistic about the outcome. Ireland believes that any solution to the Afghanistan conflict must create conditions whereby the Afghan people can exercise their rights to self-determination and must respect the independence, sovereignty and non-alignment of that country.
South Africa continues to control Namibia in clear defiance of international opinion and the United Nations. Most recently it has been condemned by the Security Council for setting up of an unrepresentative internal interim administration for the territory. We will continue to work towards a peaceful negotiated settlement leading to independence for Namibia in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 435. The Government remain willing to assist as appropriate, peace efforts in accordance with this plan. We are prepared to provide a contingent of Garda for service with the proposed UN Transition Assistance Group to help prepare Namibia for independence. We are also prepared to supply military observers and support personnel if requested by the Secretary General.
In South Africa itself the regime has been shaken by an explosion of political violence among the majority black community. Hundreds have died since the latter half of last year as result of this violence, in clashes with the police and in incidents in black townships across the country. The appalling and indiscriminate shooting of protesters by police near Uitenhage in March was condemned by Ireland and her Community partners. The South African Government in recent months have announced reforms ostensibly designed to improve the condition of urban blacks, but they have shown no serious intention of making any fundamental alteration in the basic structure of the apartheid system, nor have they engaged in political dialogue with leaders of the black community.
South Africa has continued, moreover, to flout international opinion by its aggressive and destablising activities in neighbouring states. Despite its announcement that its troops were to be withdrawn from Angola, activities by South African forces continue to be reported there. Recently South African commandoes attacked the capital of Botswana, a country heretofore free from the strife which has affected the region, killing, among others, a six year old child. Despite the 1984 Nkomati Accords, under which South Africa undertook to curb its support for the rebel MNR movement, the situation in Mozambique continues to be serious.
These activities both within and beyond South African borders have strengthened international opinion against South Africa as never before. Ireland welcomes this development as we have long advocated a stronger international line against South Africa. The Government will continue to work, at the United Nations, for the adoption of further mandatory sanctions against South Africa, such as an oil embargo, a ban on new direct investment and a strengthening of the existing arms embargo. Within the European Community, in the framework of European Political Co-operation, we shall also continue to press for the Community to use its economic and political influence to persuade South Africa to end apartheid.
This year the UN celebrates its 40th anniversary. This year too, Ireland marks the 30th year of its membership of the world organisation. During those years the UN has faced many crises and has contributed in no small measure to their resolution. Nevertheless it is clear that the UN is not functioning as it should and that the high hopes and aspirations which greeted its foundation have not been met. This is a matter of grave concern. Any weakening of the UN as an organisation weakens respect for the rule of international law and weakens the instruments for conflict resolution. As a small country with limited ability to influence international developments but critically dependent on international stability for trade and investment, Ireland has a crucial interest in the maintenance of an international framework based on co-operation and the rule of law. We are consequently concerned at the continued erosion in the authority and standing of the UN organisation and at the unwillingness or inability of states, including the major powers on the Security Council, to make the system work. We have pledged ourselves to work with the Secretary General and other like-minded states to improve the functioning of the organisation and to restore it to its central place in international life.
A practical way of contributing to the aims and ideals of the UN has been our participation in UN peacekeeping operations. We celebrate this year the 25th anniversary of Ireland's involvement in the UN peacekeeping force in the Congo. Today we participate in the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO); in the UN Inspection Teams in Iran and Iraq; in the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP); and we provide a large contingent to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). It is appropriate that I pay tribute to all members of the Irish Defence Force who have participated in the UN peacekeeping operations. By their efforts Ireland has built for itself an international reputation in peacekeeping of which we can be justly proud. We must be aware, however, that our personnel may not always be free from the dangers inherent in international peacekeeping operations. We have seen examples of this most recently in incidents involving UNIFIL and the Israel defence forces and Israeli-backed militias in southern Lebanon. I can assure the House that every effort will continue to be made to minimise the risks to Irish personnel serving with UNIFIL and to ensure that UNIFIL will be in a position to implement its mandate. The Government, in addition, will continue to monitor developments in southern Lebanon; to co-ordinate with other troop contributing countries; and to evaluate our contribution to UNIFIL in the light of the recommendations of the UN Secretary General.
The second topic which I wish to discuss today is the European Community. Last year was a particularly significant one for the European Community. The Stuttgart Summit of June 1983 had committed the member governments to a relaunching of Europe. Such a relaunch could take place only on the basis of a reassessment of the progress made in achieving that "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" to which the Treaty of Rome commits us. And this work could only effectively begin following substantial progress in resolving the immediate problems which had long preoccupied the Community. The progress achieved during the French, Irish and Italian Presidencies in resolving the problem of the British budgetary contribution, in agreeing an increase in the Community's own resources — a decision of considerable importance to Ireland — and in bringing the accession negotiations with Spain and Portugal to a conclusion allowed the Milan European Council to concentrate on the issue of further European integration. The conclusions of the Summit will have direct and important bearing on a number of issues concerning the further development of the community which I should like to discuss.
I should first recall that the outcome of the enlargement negotiations with Spain and Portugal was a fair and balanced one. Let me take this opportunity to welcome the signature of the Treaties of Accession in both countries. We look forward to their full membership on 1 January 1986.
In the key area of fisheries the agreements reached are very positive in terms of the protection and further development of the Irish fishing industry. Not only will Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels be excluded for ten years from fishing in the 50 mile Irish box zone around our coast, but after 1996 only 93 Spanish vessels will be allowed fish in the Irish box area. Enlargement also presents this country with opportunities arising from the early opening up of the hitherto highly protected Spanish market. Spanish and Portuguese industrial tariffs will be progressively dismantled over seven years. Moreover, the abolition of quantitative restrictions from the date of accession should be of assistance to Irish exporters, some of whom have encountered difficulties in the past in gaining access to the Spanish market. The opening of the Iberian markets will likewise provide opportunities for the development of agricultural exports to these countries.
Apart from the question of enlargement the issue which has been to the forefront of Community affairs in the past year has been the question of further progress towards European Union. The Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs, the Dooge Committee, which was set up by the European Council in Fontainebleau in June last year, reported to the European Council last March. The report of the committee was the principal basis for the discussions on the further development of the Community at the European Council in Milan last weekend. The Taoiseach has already reported in detail on the Milan Summit. However, I should like to make some brief observations on the proposals from the Milan Summit regarding the future development of European Political Co-operation. These proposals are contained in the draft treaty proposed by France and Germany, which will be the main basis for efforts to strengthen the commitment, broaden the scope, and improve the functioning of European Political Co-operation.
The text agreed in Milan as the basis of further work in this regard has a number of elements of particular importance for this country and for the approach which successive Governments have taken towards the further development of the scope and content of European Political Co-operation. I would like especially to mention three points.
First, it has always been our view that the interests, particularly of the smaller member states, are best protected if the extent and nature of their commitments and their rights within the Community are clearly and precisely defined. Consequently, it is of advantage to us that the commitments, obligations and rights of member states with regard to the process of political co-operation should be incorporated in a juridically precise and binding form.
Second, the Franco/German draft agreement explicitly sets out important distinctions, to which I have referred repeatedly in the past. The most significant of these, already referred to in his speech on Tuesday by the Taoiseach, is the provision by which the draft treaty places consultation and co-operation on security matters other than their political and economic aspects, that is to say, matters with operational defence implications, firmly outside the framework of the proposed political co-operation arrangements. Such co-operation on security and defence matters will be the province of the Western European Union which Ireland has no intention of joining.
Third, Ireland has consistently argued that the further development of political co-operation must be firmly linked to developments in the Community framework. In this regard, the approach adopted by the Milan European Council is advantageous since it clearly implies that progress within European political co-operation will be part of an overall advance towards the creation of a genuine community of economic interests.
In conclusion, a few words on a subject which might aptly be entitled "Irish neutrality and political paranoia". We have heard a great deal lately both inside and outside this House about sinister moves and plots to undermine Irish neutrality. The weavers of these fantasies it seems expect the public to believe that, by some combination of art and guile yet to be explained, Ireland can be smuggled into a military alliance unbeknownst to herself. However, as usual, no evidence has been produced to substantiate these dark imaginings. Perhaps we might be permitted to hope that for some time to come at least, the outcome of the Milan Summit and the clear acceptance and understanding of Ireland's position will serve to spare us all from the pervasive and ultimately pernicious rumour-mongering about the imminent danger to Irish neutrality.
The Government believe that European Union must rest on a solid economic foundation. There is a danger of regional disparities becoming even more pronounced in the enlarged Community. The Government have accordingly pressed for more effective action by the Community to reduce regional imbalances. The promotion of genuine economic convergence was an important aspect of the Government's approach to the work of the Milan European Council and will remain a priority objective in our approach to the deliberations and decisions arising from Milan. At our urging, the Milan European Council decided that the objectives of harmonious development and economic convergence should be given due weight in the pursuit of the Community objective of developing a single free market. Moreover, the Milan European Council invited the Commission to submit to the European Council meeting next December a detailed report on current inadequacies as regards growth and employment in the European economy compared to those of its major competitors and on the new strategies that could be implemented to remedy the situation.
The pursuit by the Government of the objective of genuine convergence will involve, among other things, efforts to exploit such possibilities as may exist for greater concertation of the economic policies of member states, notably to combat unemployment; support for increased resources for the structural funds and, to the extent that this may prove necessary, for assigning a greater proportion of these funds to the regions most in need, including Ireland; support for strengthening the European Monetary System; and, most pertinently, advocacy of the need for a further increase in the Community's own resources.
This country has benefited substantially from the structural funds, receiving some £1.05 billion since our accession. In 1984 alone we received approximately £198 million from these three structural funds. The increase in the Community's own resources from 1 per cent to 1.4 per cent next January should help to ensure that the resources available to the structural funds will be adequate to meet the demands placed on them in the short term. However, the Government will work to ensure that any new pressures devolving on the structural funds as a result of enlargement do not lead to a reduction in transfers from the funds to meet this country's needs as a member of the Community. Indeed when the European Council at Brussels last March reached decisions on the financing of integrated Mediterranean programmes, designed to cushion the Community's Mediterranean regions against the impact of enlargement, we were successful in having the European Council agree that the use of structural funds money to help finance these programmes would not adversely affect transfers from the funds of other less prosperous and priority regions of the Community like Ireland. This provision has since been written into the legislation governing the operation of the integrated Mediterranean programmes.
The international economic situation in recent years has not been conducive to expansion or to a recovery in employment. The outcome of the Economic Summit in Bonn in May must be seen as inadequate when seen against the realities of the existing situation. The suggestion that certain of our partners would expand their economies in order to give some stimulus to the world economy was dismissed. Accordingly we have been active in every possible forum in drawing attention to the huge number of people who are out of work, particularly in the Community. The European Council in Milan asked the Commission to prepare a detailed report on current inadequacies as regards growth and employment in the European economy compared to that of its major competitors amongst the industrialised countries and on new strategies that could be implemented to remedy the situation. We see the preparation of this report, which is to be ready later this year, as recognition of the case that we have consistently been making. We will continue to make this case and to stress the urgent need to intensify the struggle against unemployment particularly at the Community level.
The international economic situation is of very great importance to a small open economy such as ours where a high percentage of our gross national product depends on international trade. The international economy continued to grow in 1984 for the second year of world recovery after a long period of recession. However, it is not certain that this rate of economic growth — which is dependent largely on the US economy — will be sustained. In this uncertain international context our national performance in exports has been especially commendable. Last year exports grew by 17 per cent in volume terms, a record figure for Ireland and the highest in the European Community for last year. This rate of growth has continued during the first half of this year. However, foreign earnings and investment take place today in an increasingly competitive environment and this means an even greater national effort. My Department gives priority to supporting this national effort and through their offices abroad fully assists individual businessmen and exporters and the State agencies involved.
I shall turn now to my third and final topic — developments in relation to Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish relations. The most important development over the past year in this regard has of course been the follow-up to the agreement between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister at Chequers in November last that there should be negotiations between our two Governments. The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister agreed that:
the identities of both the majority and the minority communities in Northern Ireland should be recognised and respected; and reflected in the structures and processes of Northern Ireland in ways acceptable to both communities; and that the process of government in Northern Ireland should be such as to provide the people of both communities with the confidence that their rights will be safeguarded.
The negotiations which are continuing are aimed at incorporating these two central principles in new structures in this island. The acceptance by the British Government of the requirement that these two principles should be at the heart of our negotiations marks a considerable step forward in Anglo-Irish understanding. The London Times in a recent editorial recognised, as we do, that these two principles are of the essence of the analysis of the problem of Northern Ireland as outlined in the report of the New Ireland Forum.
In our negotiations with the British Government, the position of the Irish Government is based rigorously and undeviatingly on the Forum report. The structures and processes of Northern Ireland have hitherto failed to recognise, respect or reflect the identity of the nationalist section of the community in Northern Ireland.
For my part, and quite apart from the current Anglo-Irish negotiations, I have used every opportunity open to me to protect and foster the interests and the identity of the Northern Nationalists. Whether our negotiations succeed or fail, I shall continue to do this. What is that nationalist identity? The Forum itself provided a succinct answer to this question. Among the major realities which it identified in paragraph 1 of Chapter 5 of its report is the definition that:
The nationalist identity and ethos comprise a sense of national Irish identity and a democratically founded wish to have that identity institutionalised in a sovereign Ireland united by consent.
Our job now — and it is a very difficult job for both Governments — is to accommodate that identity in new structures.
Of course our primary concern is for the well-being of the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland, whose identity has hitherto been neither recognised nor accommodated, but we are also deeply and genuinely concerned to secure the dignity and the well-being of the Unionist people. The Forum report also defined their identity:
The unionist identity and ethos comprise a sense of Britishness, allied to their particular sense of Irishness and a set of values comprising a Protestant ethos which they believe to be under threat from a Catholic ethos, perceived as reflecting different and often opposing values.
The Irish Government are determined to recognise and respect the sense of Britishness as well as the particular sense of Irishness and the set of values of the Unionist people and to ensure that they also are reflected in new structures and processes in this island.
As the Taoiseach said recently, we cannot at this moment predict the outcome of these negotiations. We can say that both Governments are making a serious attempt to find new common ground. I have no doubt that the British Government realise, as we do, that failure would seriously damage the hopes and the well-being of all of the men, women and children in Ireland and particularly in Northern Ireland. On our side we seek neither a cosmetic success nor a triumphalist outcome to these talks. We seek real and lasting progress to peace and stability.
We in this House speak for Ireland and the Irish Government act on our behalf. Those who murder our brave gardaí, those who plan to plant bombs intended to murder ordinary men, women and children in British holiday resorts are the enemies of the Irish people. They do not speak for us. They do not act for us. We reject them utterly.
Ours is an Irish nationalist Government. For us, as for all the parties in the New Ireland Forum, a unitary state embracing the whole of Ireland achieved by agreement, and accommodating all Irish traditions, is the preferred solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. The Irish Government subscribe fully to the following commitment which the Fine Gael and Labour members, along with those of Fianna Fáil and the SDLP, gave in the Forum report:
The Parties in the Forum will continue to work by peaceful means to achieve Irish unity in agreement.
This is our goal and we are proud of our commitment to it.
It is a fact that the British Government are not now prepared to establish a unitary state in Ireland. We must face that fact and its implications. We have, as I have frequently said, a fundamental choice here. That choice lies between on the one hand continuing to call for a unitary state solution to the exclusion of any intermediary progress and on the other hand pressing for progress now without abandoning or in any sense concealing or diminishing our commitment to our preferred form of Irish unity.
The Forum report made that choice for constitutional nationalists in the following solemn commitment which comprises paragraph 10 of Chapter 5.
The Parties in the Forum also remain open to discuss other views which may contribute to political development.
I am profoundly convinced that we, the Nationalists of this sovereign State, which incorporates our identity fully, have no moral or political right to say to the Nationalists of Northern Ireland that we will refuse to take part in common efforts to accommodate their identity and their rights in new political structures just because the British Government at this time refuse to establish at one stroke a unitary state in Ireland. To say this to the Nationalists of the North would be to condemn yet another generation of the nationalists people to exclusion, hopelessness and conflict. I am sure that no one in Dáil Éireann would wilfully wish such a fate on those long suffering people.
This Government, if we succeed in the current negotiations with Britain, will seek no political advantage from that success: neither over the Opposition here nor over the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. That is not what we are about. Let me again make our position crystal clear. First, the Irish Government are totally committed to Irish unity and we will continue, without fear or favour, to work for its achievement by peaceful means and in agreement. Second, we are determined to transform the condition of the Northern Nationalists and to do so now.
Having listened to the Minister for Foreign Affairs one must surely query whether we have a coherent foreign policy. We are spending £21.5 million this year on our diplomatic service, a service which has not only been spared cutbacks but received a substantial increase in resources in 1984 which it managed to hold on to after the Presidency had passed. Indeed, since 1982 the gross expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs has increased by 29 per cent. This compares with an increase of 19 per cent in the gross Estimate for Health, 25 per cent for the Garda Síochána, 20 per cent for primary education, a 23 per cent increase in Agriculture, and so on. It is clear from these figures that the Department of Foreign Affairs are in a favoured position under this Government with regard to cutbacks. It would be instructive if the Minister were to set out more fully the reasons the Department of Foreign Affairs have fared better than other Government services since 1982. The Presidency in 1985 should, of course, no longer be a factor.
I am asking the Minister what the strength of the diplomatic establishment is as compared with 1982. Has the public service recruitment embargo affected the Department less than other Departments? I know there has been a 50 per cent increase in the budget for information services since 1982. Naturally, I wonder where the extra money is being spent and what is its purpose.
Our foreign service is staffed by able and dedicated personnel and is an important and valuable instrument if put to the right use. Indeed, it is a valuable asset to any Government if used properly. It has an important function in relation to trade, a supportive role in relation to investment and a major role in relation to the negotiations on the operation of EC policies including grants and subsidies from which Ireland may benefit.
I was very disturbed, as were many other Members of this House from all parties, at an attack by a member of this Government on our diplomatic service during the course of an address given by the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, in Germany not so long ago. The report of the incident, carried in the Irish Independent, said that a Government Minister had taken on the Irish Diplomatic Corps in a war of words over the promotion of Irish produce abroad.
The Minister went on to say that our embassies and ambassadors abroad are not doing enough in the commercial field and accused the diplomatic corps of a preoccupation with a solely protocol presence in other countries.
He called for radical changes in the role of embassies and ambassadors abroad and urged them to get involved in a more commercial role. He said that the Department of Foreign Affairs could direct their resources to help our trading abroad at a time when State bodies had less funds to promote Irish products. These remarks were made at the Berlin Green Week and it is reported that they were understood to have annoyed our ambassador to Germany, Mr. Campbell, and others of his staff who were present. Deputy Deasy's speech was delivered before numerous German dignatories and Irish representatives involved in the trade fair.
Of course the Minister for Agriculture may criticise the operations of the diplomatic service. Of course he may wish that their role be examined and changed, if necessary. Surely the place where these suggestions should have been aired was not in public in front of the Irish ambassador and representatives from other countries at this trade fair but rather at Government level, if the Minister wanted to take it that far, or with his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This type of off-the cuff attack on our diplomatic service and personnel was totally uncalled for and a public apology is due to the persons concerned from Deputy Deasy. In the diplomatic world people could be forgiven for referring to him as someone who shoots from the lip, but that is not good enough since it causes embarrassment.
I am not saying that the role of our diplomatic representatives should not be examined but certainly I would condemn a public examination. If we can get a greater return for our nation for the investment in this area, then naturally we will all be pleased. I would welcome a comment on this matter when the Minister for Foreign Affairs is replying because I believe it was a dreadful political and diplomatic blunder by the Minister for Agriculture. I am quite satisfied that the foreign service is a very valuable asset to the Government and that it plays an important function in relation to trade and investment. This I know from my experience not just in Foreign Affairs but in watching the extremely valuable assistance they give to the IDA, CTT, Bord Fáilte and industrialists who might feel it incumbent on them to call to embassies and consulates for advice, particularly in the United States. One example of which I am reminded is Shannon Airport, which has never looked back since the Aeroflot agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1980.
Having regard to the resources devoted to the Department over the past two-and-a-half years, I would have hoped that better results might have come from them. Naturally one must query the reasons these results have not come. The view has to be held that the fault clearly lies with the political direction or absence of direction. This Government do not have a coherent foreign policy or clear foreign policy objectives. We certainly have no clear policy on Northern Ireland or on our relations with America. Our policy towards the EC is confused and the clear profile which we had three years ago on disarmament has been dissipated. Our distinctive approach to many of the major problems in the Middle East, Southern Africa and Latin America has not been very much in evidence lately.
The broad foreign policy position of any Government should be publicly known and capable of being clearly articulated and understood at home and abroad. Certainly secrecy may legitimately apply to tactics, but not normally to broad objectives. Policy on the Northern Ireland problem and on relations with Britain has always been a key element of Irish foreign policy. Yet no one knows what the Government's policy is, what their objectives are, or what they are trying to achieve. There is no secrecy on the British side as to their broad position. Mr. Hurd, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and to some extent the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, have made numerous public statements which set out clearly what they want to achieve, what their priorities and their parameters are. Today's edition of the Daily Telegraph reports Mr. Hurd as saying only yesterday:
Ulster's constitution does not involve the Dublin Government.... executive power isn't going to be transferred or shared. The Prime Minister has made that very clear.
There is no corresponding clarity on the Irish side. The public do not know what is going on. Our friends in America do not understand what the Government are trying to achieve and even the British Government may not be altogether clear on what the Irish Government want. Why all the secrecy? Are the Government ashamed of what they are trying to do and frightened of public reaction here? They know that what they are trying to do is not compatible with the Forum report.
One Government Minister, who shall be nameless, was in the North recently and I am reliably informed that he told a group of people that Irish unity could not be afforded, that what the Government were aiming for was an internal settlement and that they would come up — he and his colleagues in Government, if they are still there — to visit the people there from time to time and see how they were getting on. The same Minister was in America recently and told a group of Irish Americans that we had to get away from the dreams and visions of the past. One of those Americans thought to himself: "This is a Minister of a State which itself was once a dream and a vision". "Mutual incomprehension" was the phrase used to describe the meeting between the Cardinal Archbishop of New York and the Taoiseach recently——
That is hearsay.
The breakdown in relations between the Irish in America and the Government is a potentially serious development. Indeed, a point was made that the Taoiseach and some of his Ministers would qualify for honorary membership of the British diplomatic service in terms of the negative message put across in the United States. No positive vision is offered for Irish Americans to rally round and indeed a valuable source of help is spurned and told that it is not wanted.
Debate adjourned.