asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will seek permission to derogate from the terms of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to permit the Government, should they so decide, to impose trade sanctions against the South African régime.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - South Africa Trade Sanctions.
9.
I have set out the views of the Government on the question of a unilateral ban on trade with South Africa on a number of occasions most recently when replying to a question on 5 November last.
The view of the Government is that, for pressure on South Africa to be effective, broad international agreement is required on measures such as the strength ening of the existing arms import embargo, the introduction of an oil embargo and a ban on new investment in South Africa and the Government will continue to seek international agreement on the adoption of such measures.
The question of derogation from the terms of either the EC Treaty or the GATT has not arisen. The Government's aim is to bring maximum pressure to bear on the South African Government to abandon their policy of apartheid and institute a dialogue with representatives of the black community. I wish to assure the Deputy that policy towards South Africa is kept constantly under review with this aim in mind. Whatever appropriate measures are required in pursuit of this policy, as determined by the Government, will be taken.
The reason this question is on today's Order paper is that in his reply of 5 November the Minister indicated that a unilateral boycott of South African goods could be in contravention of the GATT and EC Treaties, and in a further answer of 27 November he indicated the articles involved. Would he say whether they have sought, or intend to seek, or have even considered seeking, derogation from the articles of the treaties referred to in view of the fact that the South African régime are still exporting goods to Ireland, that the apartheid régime is clearly repugnant to the majority in this country and that there would be widespread support for a unilateral boycott of goods?
I think the Deputy is under a slight misapprehension. We do not intend to seek derogation from our EC or GATT obligations. Ariticle 36 of the EC Treaty allows us to ban the importation of certain goods for reasons of public morality, public security or health of animal, plant and human health. It cannot be done for political or trade reasons. There is a subparagraph in Article 36 which says it cannot be done for protectionist reasons. Even if we could introduce measures to ban South African goods, it would be ineffective while there is free movement of goods throughout the Community. What we want is Community action or worldwide action if this is to be truly effective, and that is what we should be aiming at. We should consistently seek to strengthen the measures which have been taken on a worldwide and on a Community basis and, if I may say so, we have been modestly successful in doing that in the EC in the past few months.
I have no wish to deny the Minister's efforts in this area but, in view of the widespread effect which the action taken by 11 young people in Dublin had in raising the consciousness of apartheid in Ireland and abroad, similar unilateral action taken by the Irish Government could have the effect of galvanising international support in the same direction. While every effort should be made to have agreed moves in this area, where this is failing, unilateral action is called for.
I agree that action by the European Community on a worldwide basis would be more effective, and I am not denying for a moment the attention which the action of the young people of Dublin got. There has been worldwide condemnation of the obscenity of the system of Government in that country and the suffering of the majority of the population. I am sure every Deputy will join me in condemning that régime and we will seek to alleviate the suffering of the majority in the most practical way.