Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 21 Mar 1986

Vol. 364 No. 12

International Year of Peace: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann,

— recalling the proclamation by the United Nations of 1986 as the International Year of Peace

— recalling that the purposes of the United Nations include the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations among peoples, and the achievement of international co-operation in solving international problems

— believing that it is the duty of all States to work for the achievement of these purposes and to support the efforts of the United Nations to attain these ends

— being conscious of the pressing need for the achievement of lasting peace and reconciliation on this island

(1) Expresses the fervent hope that all Governments can overcome the major obstacles to peace by halting the nuclear arms race and pursuing the goal of general and complete disarmament, by ensuring respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and by promoting economic and social development for all;

(2) Further hopes that all Governments will work actively to promote peace with justice and freedom;

(3) Calls in this year for real progress in accommodating the rights and identities of the two traditions which exist in Northern Ireland and in the promotion of lasting peace and stability throughout Ireland.

It is my privilege to recommend this resolution to the House. While the United Nations select a different theme for each International Year, I am especially happy to be associated with one which expressly celebrates the ideal of peace.

The specific purpose in establishing this year of peace has been to stimulate concerted and effective action not only by the United Nations and the governments of its member states, but also by non-governmental organisations, educational and academic institutions and the media in focusing attention and encouraging reflection on the basic requirement of peace in the contemporary world. The fact that this resolution is before Dáil Éireann provides an opportunity for us, the members of the Government and Opposition parties, to express our endorsement of the ideals set forth therein. By addressing the issue of peace and, specifically, our role in its attainment, we would hope to encourage widespread interest throughout the country in what is involved in the promotion of peace.

The promotion of international peace has been a central element in Ireland's foreign policy since the founding of the State. Since joining the United Nations, in particular, Ireland has established a clear and unequivocal identity as a tireless proponent of nuclear disarmament, especially through the initiation and continuous promotion of the goals set out in the Non-Proliferation Treaty for a world free of nuclear weapons. There is quite evidently a consensus in Ireland among all sections of the community on the need for action to achieve peace and stability both at an international and a national level. This is borne out by the manner in which we speak out against social and racial injustice, the denial of human rights and the acceleration of the arms race, especially the nuclear arms race. The year of peace is also a particularly appropriate opportunity to evaluate our efforts to promote peace and reconciliation in Ireland and the possible way forward in that endeavour.

Clearly, we can describe peace in its narrowest sense as the absence of war. Unhappily in many parts of the world not even that minimal condition applies. In others there is more happily an absence of armed conflict but, despite this, as we look at the array of nuclear weapons deployed today, we have to admit that the peace which prevails is a very fragile structure. This peace must at all costs be preserved and given an even firmer foundation. To that end, peace must be defined in a broader sense as the flourishing of conditions which promote genuine human development. The attainment of this kind of peace calls for ways and means of establishing genuine and lasting security by enlarging human understanding, by the promotion of friendly relations between nations, and by advancing the causes of arms control and disarmament. In this connection we bear in mind that the theme of the year of peace is to safeguard peace and the future of humanity.

As I have indicated, a major focus of our attention during this year of peace should be the process of peace and reconciliation on this island. The tragedy of the past 15 years of unrest in Northern Ireland is a clear demonstration of the scars which violence and terror leave on the expectations of people for the fulfilment of their human potential in conditions of normality. Injustice has fed violence in the North for too long and alienation has provided the lifesupport for paramilitary and terrorist activity. I believe the amelioration of the conditions of hardship and injustice suffered by the Nationalist community will go some way towards creating political stability. Only within the context of peace and stability can violence and terrorism be eliminated. It is with this perspective in mind that we should reflect in this year of peace on the endeavours of the Government through the Anglo-Irish Agreement to lay the foundations for conditions in which all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, Nationalists and Unionists alike, can build towards the realisation of their potential for social, economic and cultural development.

I would also like to direct the attention of the House to other areas of the world where tension and strife have become the order of the day. We earnestly hope that those drawn into these conflicts will find some measure of relief in 1986.

The continuing conflicts in the Middle East region remain of concern. As we are all too aware, violent incidents continue to undermine progress towards peace and deflect attention from the efforts to find a settlement. We join our hopes with those who are affected by the war between Iran and Iraq and by adverse developments in Lebanon that they will see progress towards resolving those conflicts during 1986. We hope that the efforts of the Secretary-General of the UN and of the Security Council can bring nearer a negotiated settlement of the Iran-Iraq war, which has now entered its sixth year.

We applaud all efforts directed at ensuring an end to civil strife in Lebanon. Ireland has shown its commitment to facilitating the quest for a solution to the problems of the Lebanon by contributing troops to the UNIFIL forces serving there. Indeed, it is appropriate at a time when Irish troops are serving with distinction not only in Lebanon but also in Cyprus and as observers in various other centres in the Middle East to recall that Ireland, in the more than 30 years of its membership of the United Nations, has participated in almost every major peacekeeping and observer mission established in that period. In doing so we have given tangible proof of our commitment to the provisions enshrined in the Charter and to the principles which we wish to highlight in this International Year of Peace.

Sadly the continuation of the apartheid regime in South Africa affects the possibility of human development of all the citizens of that country. Ireland is a resolute opponent of apartheid, a system of institutionalised racial discrimination. Irish foreign policy has worked consistently towards the abolition of the iniquitous system of apartheid by peaceful means and towards the emergence in its place of a democratic and multi-racial society. We have striven at the UN and elsewhere for the adoption internationally of measures which would promote this and thus contribute to progress towards peace in that country.

Elsewhere in the world, we must not forget the continuing conflicts in Afghanistan and in Kampuchea involving the presence of foreign forces. These are constantly open sores on the Asian continent. The Central American isthmus remains deeply troubled by the interrelated problems of the region which include political instability, economic deprivation and widescale abuses of human rights. Other parts of that subcontinent too are troubled by these problems. Let us earnestly hope that the year of peace will see some advance towards a solution of the problems afflicting those troubled parts of the world.

Peace and development are inextricably linked. Just as freedom from violence is a prerequisite for development, it is also true that only through realisation of social and economic needs can stable and secure conditions for peace be established and maintained. A degree of economic prosperity is for all States an indispensable factor in their ability to uphold stability and security. Freedom from hunger, disease and illiteracy are basic to stability and peace.

The inability of the countries of the Third World to tackle their development needs has greatly hindered their achievement of this freedom. The growing interdependence of all countries requires a joint approach to the further development of both the industrialised and developing countries. There is a shared responsibility towards the relief of poverty and oppression and the resolution of conflict wherever they occur, for none of us, North or South, can escape the consequences of poverty, oppression and conflict.

An important inhibition to the attainment of development goals today is excessive military expenditure in pursuit of the false security of armed strength. This excessive expenditure affects security itself through the ensuing diversion of resources away from development and hence away from the stable, social and economic conditions that are so necessary a base for peace and security.

Conversely, the social and economic goals of all societies would be served by the search for conditions of collective security not dependent on the acquisition of ever more sophisticated and destabilising weaponry. The convening of the UN Conference on Disarmament and Development later this year will provide a timely opportunity to examine in depth the many dimensions of this complex relationship.

The creation of conditions in which peace can flourish requires that the rights and freedoms which we in this part of the world take for granted should be available on a worldwide basis. It is only when all States seriously begin to live up to their obligations in the field of human rights that we can look forward to the establishment of genuine and lasting stability.

However, the continued existence of situations in which human rights are violated in so many parts of the world should not blind us to the very real advances which have been made in the area of human rights. The adoption in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights marked a turning point in the establishment of standards to which all pledged respect, even if in many cases performance falls short of commitment.

I should mention that this year we began our second term as a member of the Commission on Human Rights. Through our membership of the commission we are involved in the elaboration of international human rights instruments but also play our part in the process, always difficult and at times pursued to best advantage out of the glare of publicity, of examining and reporting on allegations of abuses of human rights in individual countries.

In carrying out this task we are motivated solely by a desire to secure observance of the rights and freedoms which are the entitlement of all human beings, and pursue these efforts in the belief that, in the words of the Universal Declaration:

the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

The UN General Assembly has invited all States, all organisations within the UN system and interested non-governmental organisations to co-operate with the Secretary-General in achieving the objectives of the year. For their part, my Department are finalising the details of a programme of activities to mark the International Year of Peace. These activities focus on the promotion of peace and reconciliation in Ireland as well as on the wider international peace issues of disarmament, economic and social development and respect for human rights. This month's issue of the departmental newsletter Ireland Today has been devoted to different aspects of Ireland's contribution to the search for peace.

In addition to the activities promoted by my Department, An Post will issue two commemorative postage stamps to mark the year. I understand that the Department of Education is also considering certain activities in connection with the year.

I am aware that many concerned non-governmental bodies also intend to make their own contributions to the search for peace during the year and I wish them every success with their activities.

In conclusion I should like to allude to the remarks made by the UN Secretary-General in proclaiming the International Year of Peace on 1 January 1986. He recalled that the United Nations itself "was created to preserve peace and that for 40 years, it has worked to ease and resolve the problems which afflict this planet". He went on to exhort the members of the UN organisation "to act on behalf of the future well-being of all nations with the vision and forebearance that peace requires". I believe it is incumbent on all of us now to seize the opportunities of 1986 with determination, confident that we can take important steps towards the enduring peace on which a much better tomorrow depends.

Mr. Haughey

This motion on the International Year of Peace focuses not only on halting the arms race but calls for real progress in Northern Ireland towards lasting peace and stability. Of course we fully support the motion in all its terms and we welcome the proclamation of an International Year of Peace. In so far as the Government undertake any specific action in support of the International Year of Peace we will be very glad to give any such proposals our full support and, if necessary, participation.

The motion calls for real progress in accommodating the rights and identities of the two tranditions which exist in Northern Ireland and the promotion of lasting peace and stability throughout Ireland. I wholeheartedly endorse that call and I earnestly hope that progress can be made.

I stated frequently that Fianna Fáil cannot accept the constitutional implications of the Anglo-Irish Agreement but that if the Anglo-Irish Conference could bring about any improvement in or amelioration of the situation of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland we would not wish to inhibit or undermine its work. Even though we have been restrained and responsible in our attitude and in stating our position, we have had to endure intemperate and unjustified attacks by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreigh Affairs who used such emotive words as "treachery" and "sabotage". These attacks were disgraceful and unsustainable and they cannot serve the cause of bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland.

In the Hillsborough Agreement the two Governments agreed on the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice and on the need to improve relations between the security forces and the community with the object of making the security forces more readily acceptable by the Nationalist community.

The supergrass system is deeply objectionable. It is a travesty of justice to convict possibly dozens of people on the uncorroborated and dubious evidence of a paid informer. Yet, in the House of Commons on 19 March, the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, stated that the trials in Northern Ireland based on the evidence of supergrasses will continue with the full support of the British Government. We have strongly condemned the unacceptable practice of strip searching in Armagh Women's Prison. There is wide-spread rejection of this practice but Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott, within 24 hours has come back to say that strip searching will continue.

Calls for the disbandment of the UDR have come from the SDLP, Fianna Fáil and others. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs condemned the UDR in the strongest possible terms as a dangerous source of division and an armed instrument of domination. Since Christmas, the UDR have shot a civilian while unaccompanied by any member of the RUC. Yesterday, however, the Northern Ireland Office in a public pronouncement by way of advertisement described as a fiction any suggestion that the UDR might be disbanded. The use of plastic bullets is still apparently to be permitted and there has still not been progress on the matter of repealing the Flags and Emblems Act.

Many people have given their support to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and were prepared to overlook the fact that it undermines our constitutional position, on the basis that it will effect real change in the position of Nationalists and thus bring about peace and stability. The recent pronouncements by British Ministers cannot be seen as an encouragement to that process, to say the least of it. Our Government must insist on real reform if the large body of Irish public opinion which supports the agreement on the basis I have outlined, is not to be grievously disappointed.

I deeply resent the Taoiseach attempting to accuse me and Fianna Fáil of national sabotage simply because I outlined in a restrained and responsible fashion the Fianna Fáil position on the agreement while at the same time, Mr. Tom King, Sir Michael Havers, Mr. Nicholas Scott and the Northern Ireland Office can make statements which clearly inhibit the efforts to end some of the more pronounced, undesirable features of the system of administration of justice in Northern Ireland without any comment from the Taoiseach or the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The British Secretary of State of Northern Ireland now apparently feels he is entitled to tell the people of this part of the country the sort of Constitution we should have, and even the sort of society we should create. I am not prepared to accept that kind of interference in our affairs by the Northern Secretary of State. I suggest that the Government and the Minister for Foreign affairs should at least protest against statements of that kind. To put it at its mildest, they are patronising. What would be the reaction if anyone on this side of the House made similar comments about the British Constitution and the British monarch as head of the Church there and other aspects of their society? The temptation is to over-react to remarks of that kind. I have no wish to do that, but it is no harm from time to time to remind British Ministers that this is a sovereign, independent nation and that remarks of that kind are resented and are unacceptable.

With regard to the wider and international scene, we welcome the signs that east-west tension has been easing somewhat. We support the view held in principle by both superpowers that complete nuclear disarmament is a feasible and valid objective. That is something well worth striving for. To think that the world would be free of this threat represented by the mass nuclear armaments which exist around the world is totally acceptable to all of us. We must pay tribute to the two great world leaders, President Reagan, and Mr. Gorbachev for their efforts in this regard. There is a fair amount of evidence that their efforts are sincere and we all sincerely hope their efforts will be successful.

I must disagree with some of our European friends who believe that substantial nuclear arsenals are indispensable to the maintence of peace. Once there are nuclear arsenals there is always the risk of miscalculation and accidents. Because of the number of these weapons at the moment, an accident is sufficient to threaten the very survival of humanity. We must always keep that in mind. There is not much point in continually emphasising the terror and the potential disaster that these weapons represent. The best thing we can do is to do everything in our power to help this present attempt by the super powers to achieve some sort of solution to this crucial problem.

We are facing across the Irish Seas a very dangerous nuclear reprocessing plant which while it pollutes our shores and threatens the health of those who live on the east coast, plays an important part in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. We have a legitimate right to object to these deadly nuclear activities in another country as they impinge on our situation. The chairman of the Nuclear Energy Board here — at last we can welcome some kind of activity from that board — has stated that the four Calder Hall nuclear reactors which produce plutonium within the Sellafield complex are already 30 years old and that they could pose a greater health risk to us than radio active discharges into the Irish Sea. We have already been through an appalling safety record in regard to the reprocessing plant and the various cover-ups that have been undertaken in regard to it.

There is the conclusion in the British House of Commons Committee report as reported in The Irish Times of 1 March 1986, that the Irish Sea is the most radioactive sea in the world and that, and here I quote:

... the environment around Sellafield has affectively become an open store of long-lived radioactivity.

That speaks for itself, The report states also:

Instead of the discharges obligingly dissipating into the ocean they have a nasty habit of concentrating round our shores and in our seafood and coming back to us on land in a variety of ways. .... The consumption of fish and shellfish was one of the most direct routes to man.

One does not wish to be going over the same ground too often but we cannot be too insistent in this country about the menace of Sellafield. The discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, the leaks and emissions are dangerous enough in themselves. Their real significance is that they reflect on the competence of the management. If there is an incompetent management in charge of a lethal installation of that kind surely we are entitled to be concerned: I very much regret that the Government parties, Fine Gael and Labour, saw fit to vote down our Private Members' motion when we called for the closure of Sellafield. That was a tragic mistake by those parties. To put it at its very least, if this House had passed that motion, it would have strengthened the Government's hand in dealing with the situation. We are perfectly entitled to call for the closure of Sellafield but, apart from that aspect of it, I believe Dáil Éireann lost a great opportunity to lead the world in passing a motion of that kind. The Government made a grevious mistake in marshalling their forces to vote down that resolution. The Guardian, the British newspaper, carried a headline which said: “Irish Reject Nuclear Closure”. The fact that that British newspaper could use such a headline is an indication of the damaging effect that the defeat of our motion had on our whole case in regard to Sellafield.

The Minister of State, Deputy Collins, when he went on "Today Tonight" showed clearly that he did not understand the difference between the discharges of the radioactive waste from Sellafield into the Irish Sea and the dumping of nuclear waste somewhere out in the ocean. That Minister has been proved wrong again and again over Sellafield. Still he has the audacity to call as alarmists those of us who are concerned about this matter and who give expression to our concern. I urge the Government to carry out a major re-assessment of their whole position in regard to Sellafield. Whereas on this side of the House we can talk about it, raise the alarm and voice our concerns, it is only the Government who have the capacity to do something specific. I wish the Government would take account of the widely held concern that exists about this matter. Some of the fears held may be unfounded but, in so far as any of the defenders of Sellafield are concerned, they do not give us any cause for confidence in their assurances.

In this country we have always expressed our commitment to peace by adhering to a policy of neutrality and by making a serious military contribution to the peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations. We can take very legitimate pride in our support of the United Nations and the contribution we have made to the UN. It is always a grevious disappointment to my colleagues and I — and I am sure to other Members on all sides of the House — that the United Nations does not get all round internationally the support it deserves. I believe it has, by its very existence, done an enormous amount for the preservation of peace, in the settling of disputes by peaceful means, in dealing with small outbreaks in different parts of the world which could have escalated into serious conflagrations. We must continue to do everything we can, not just to support the United Nations, but to try to seek greater international support for the United Nations, for its purposes and activities.

It is a matter of concern to us on this side of the House that the new draft EC Treaty which will come before us in due course, and which has been negotiated by the Government, has serious implications of principle for our neutrality. There is no doubt — and I do not think anybody on the far side of the House would deny — that to a great extent we were able to be effective in our contribution to the United Nations, its purposes and activities, because of our neutrality. We were acceptable in many parts of the world as a neutral nation. As such we could contribute very significantly to the purpose of the United Nations. That is a noble purpose. It might not be the sort of thing that commands a great deal of popular support but it is something of which we should be deeply proud, that we can, because of our status, be accepted around the world in situations where other nations are not accepted. Because of our acceptability in that regard we can make an important contribution to the preservation of peace through the United Nations. I hope that this House will be very zealous in protecting that position but I am worried about the implications of this new draft treaty. I do not want to pre-empt the discussion but it is something we will have to look at very seriously when the new draft treaty comes before us. We will have to look at it from a number of points of view but particularly from the point of view of our neutrality and the role in the world that our neutrality enables us to perform. For instance, Article 6A of this Treaty states: The High Contracting Parties consider that closer co-operation on questions of European security would contribute in an essential way to the development of a European identity on external policy matters.

That is very interesting language. I think it really means or, if it does not specifically mean, it certainly includes defence. It has also been taken by many of the Minister's colleagues around Europe to mean defence. The next clause states:

The High Contracting Parties are determined to maintain the technological and industrial conditions necessary for their security.

That is something we will have to look at very closely when the treaty comes before us here for examination. It would not require any great stretching of the words to take that as extending to installations like Sellafield. If the British Government were to maintain that the reprocessing facilities at Sellafield were a technological and industrial condition necessary for their security, those words are certainly open to that interpretation. Therefore, we shall have to examine this treaty in very great detail when it comes before us. We will have to examine it from a number of these different aspects.

I do not think any Deputy would accept that we should sign a treaty which would commit us categorically to the maintenance of the military installation at Sellafield. I do not think I am exaggerating the position when I say that that is a possibility of what we would be doing by signing this new draft treaty as it stands at present. The words again are: "The High Contracting Parties"— of which we are one —"are determined to maintain the technological and industrial conditions necessary for their security". I see very serious implications in that section of the Treaty and I wonder how, when the time comes, the majority of Deputies in this House who voted for the Government's soft option alternative to our motion will look upon this Treaty when it comes before us. That will in many regards be the moment of truth. We will have to decide whether when that Treaty is here ——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think we should anticipate at length what will take place on the Treaty here.

Mr. Haughey

To set your mind at rest, Sir, I would like to tell you that I do not propose to pursue the matter any further.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair ——

Mr. Haughey

I refrain from reopening the old wound that you prevented me from raising these matters in another way.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must say how much in order you are now as compared with how much you were out of order when you tried to raise it in another way the other morning when you were totally out of order. You are absolutely in order now.

Mr. Haughey

You and I agree that the purpose of this House is to explore in a considered, nature and responsible way as many issues as possible. I seek to do nothing else and I know that the Chair does not wish to prevent me doing so. We will proceed on that basis.

An Ceann Comhairle

As I say, I regard the contribution as being within the rules of order.

Mr. Haughey

Basking in your admiration, I shall continue. In fact, I will conclude because I know that other speakers want to get in. This is a matter on which we can all make an important contribution. I conclude by talking about paragraph (2) of the motion which expresses the hope that all Governments will work actively to promote peace with justice and freedom. There are at present serious conflicts in many parts, in South Africa, Latin America, Afghanistan and the Middle East. In many countries civil rights have been denied and the rights of whole peoples trampled underfoot. However, the peaceful departure of the dictators from Haiti and the Philippines was a very welcome sign, perhaps an indication of changing times.

One thing I said in the US was over-looked by the Taoiseach when he was launching his intemperate and vituperative attack on me personally. I pointed out that, when the US as the leader of the free democratic world decides to throw its weight behind a popular democratic movement of the people, the results can be both dramatic and decisive, as we know in those two cases. Those two incidents give us hope for the future. Certainly they point to a lesson as to what the US can do when it acts in the way I have mentioned.

In conclusion I hope the International Year of Peace will exercise a positive influence on Government and people everywhere throughout the world. I reiterated that we support wholeheartedly the objectives of the International Year of Peace as proclaimed by the UN.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Birmingham)

This is a limited but important debate. It is important because, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs commented, the promotion of international peace has been an element of central foreign policy throughout the years that this State has existed. It has been promoted and conducted with great energy and vigour by successive Governments since our adherence to the United Nations. In those circumstances, given that it is a limited debate and that the opportunity the House has to focus on issues of foreign policy are few enough, I must say I found that, while the speech of the Leader of the Opposition may well be very much in order, it was very much inappropriate.

I regret that the opportunity of a limited debate such as this should have been taken to rehash old arguments and domestic controversies which have figured in Private Members' Time here and on other occasions in the House. I do not believe this is the time or the place to take up the details of some of the criticism of the Taoiseach made by the Leader of the Opposition, who I ask to examine his conscience in this regard. I ask the electorate to consider their judgment in due course.

When the Deputy opposite comes to examine his conscience I ask him to ask himself one thing: does he really believe that the national interest is served on the very day that the legislature of our greatest friend is discussing an aid proposal for this country if he attacks the agreement which they are proposing to aid? If his conscience tells him that is in the national interest, then I have no quarrel with him, but I ask him to put that question to himself and to answer it honestly. I believe that question has only one answer to it, that it cannot be in the national interest that when our friends are putting together and debating an aid package, on that very day an attack should be made on the agreement which that package seeks to aid. I do not want to take that question very much further.

I was not here for the very beginning of this debate, and I regret that. The reason I was not here was that I was speaking at another engagement which in many ways is very appropriate to the subject of this debate. That was a seminar organised by the Irish Council of the European movement on the problem of famine in Africa. I believe that the issues of peace and development are inextricably linked. I will say more about that in a moment. I have said that they are linked and perhaps their linkage was most clearly established for me last year which had been designated by the UN as International Youth Year and which had as its theme the areas of peace, participation and development.

It was my pleasure during the course of that year that the Government came forward with a youth policy addressed to those themes and that an important element of that youth policy was the promotion of greater contact and greater support for exchange visits between young people from Northern Ireland of both traditions and from the Republic and young people in Britain and in Ireland. Only on the basis of contact, of knowing each other and coming to respect each other's traditions and differences can we make progress. If that is so within the island of Ireland, it is clear that it has a relevance for those divided by ideologies and allegiance to power blocks. It is also clear that the greater level of personal contact, the greater the opportunity to grow in mutual respect, understanding and tolerance.

I mentioned that the areas of peace and development are very closely linked, and so they are of course. Peace is more than simply an absence of violence. If people are to be given the opportunity to develop to their full potential, to live in conditions that dignify their humanity, then questions of development are of fundamental importance.

In the area of development at least two issues arise. There is an emergency response, a response to the tragedy of famine, but that in some ways represents an alleviation of the symptoms rather than a tackling of the root causes. That is where wider questions of development policies arise. The extent to which this country has understood and responded to the tragedy of famine in Africa is a matter from which all of us in this House can take pride. When, for example, Bob Geldof launched his Live Aid appeal it is estimated that some 93 per cent of Irish people supported that appeal in one form or another. It was mainly financial but in some cases it was through the provision of services of one sort or another. The per capita donation of almost 2½ dollars per person was the highest in the world but there is other evidence that people here understand the importance of development. For example, that evidence is to be found in an opinion poll conducted towards the end of last year and organised by the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation. That poll established overwhelming support for Ireland maintaining its obligations towards the poorer world. There was overwhelming support for increasing our level of support at a time when people were subject to a very high level of taxation and, understandbly, burdened by it.

Today we are some distance removed from the immediacy, the horror and the drama of the television programmes that led to that campaign. Today the drought has receded and whereas a year ago more than 20 African countries were afflicted by drought to day that number is reduced to six. However, there are still some 17 million people afflicted by famine. We have a responsibility to respond to that immediate and urgent need as well as addressing ourselves to the wider question of seeing that the conditions for famine do not arise in future. In the long term, the solution to the problems of famine in Africa, and elsewhere in the Third World, lies in increasing the capacity of those people to feed themselves. For the moment there is an immediate problem and it is most severe in the Sudan and in Ethiopia. In the case of the Sudan, they have enjoyed a bumper harvest but the harvest is not distributed equally throughout the country. Some provinces, particularly in the west of the country, Kordofan and Darfur, remain in the grip of drought. In the south of that country civil strife still prevails. In the arid west and strife torn south the need for support remains.

One of my first decisions on being assigned to the Department of Foreign Affairs was to allocate £150,000 from the Irish Disaster Relief Fund for relief operations in the Sudan. What is envisaged is the purchase of grain within the Sudan, particularly in the east of the country where they did enjoy a particularly good harvest, and that we would then cover the transportation costs to get it from the east to the west. It was important that that decision be made quickly and early in the year so that we could avail of the most favourable months, climatically, for transport.

Today I should like to turn my attention to the position in Ethiopia and announce further Government support for that very unhappy country. I propose to announce the allocation of a further block grant of £150,000 for famineaffected areas in Ethiopia to be used by organisations at present actively involved there, namely, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Concern, Trocaire and Third World Self-Help Development.

In Ethiopia this year it is estimated that between five million and 5.5 million people will require emergency aid. Despite having an improved harvest in 1985, Ethiopia, unlike Sudan, is still in a food-deficit situation. In four provinces the 1985 harvest fell well below normal production levels. In two of those provinces, Eritrea and Tigre, the situation is exacerbated by the continuing conflict between secessionist forces and forces loyal to the central government. The existence of that conflict has served to inhibit and curtail the activities of relief agencies. Ethiopia has a minimum net requirement this year of 800,000 tonnes of cereal of which about seven-eighths has at this stage been pledged. There is also a requirement for supplementary food such as milk, oil and so on. The advice of international organisations active in that area is that funds allocated now could be brought to bear by the organisations concerned in a planned and, therefore, more effective manner.

What will the funds we are allocating be spent on? The grant of £50,000 to the Red Cross is in respect of their relief operations in the drought and war affected provinces of northern Ethiopia. It is the only outside organisation allowed to operate there. It is also the only organisation in Ethiopia working independently of the Ethiopia Government's Relief and Rehabilitation Commission. As such, it is in a position to attempt to fill the gap in areas where the security problem prevents other organisations operating effectively. In three of the four provinces I have mentioned it is active.

To Concern, I propose to allocate a grant of £65,000. That will be used to part-finance their relief activities in the provinces of Wollo and Wollaita where they distribute family rations from seven centres. One worthwhile aspect of that is that the monitoring of the recipients that is implicit in the programme will serve as an early warning system should the position deteriorate in the future.

To Trócaire, who are doing such valuable work, I propose to grant £25,000 to be used at their discretion. Members will be aware that of late Trócaire have been concentrating their resources primarily on the provinces of Tigre and Eritrea. They are also involved in a rehabilitation programme in Eritrea and in the supply of seed potatoes in co-operation with Third World Self-Help Development. It is that organisation, TWSHD, who receives the last element of the £150,000 allocation. They will receive £10,000 in order to meet transport costs of a particular consignment of a named variety of seed potatoes, that consignment having been requested by the Ethiopian authorities. For many years potatoes have been grown in Ethiopia but in recent times people have become aware of their potential as a staple food diet. It seems to me that the provision of seed potatoes is an effective way of providing food aid because, as well as responding to the immediate needs, it has a significant self-help element.

I should like to take the opportunity also of announcing my response to a request that came to us from the International Fund for Agricultural Development. That organisation requested that there should be an Irish contribution to their special programme for sub-Saharan Africa. I am pleased to tell the House that I can now announce a positive decision, to make a contribution of £300,000. As Members will know, IFAD, in line with their main purpose of mobilising additional resources to help developing countries improve their food production, make loans, mostly on highly concessional or low interest rate terms, to projects which have a significant impact on improving food production, particularly projects that are targeted at benefiting the poorest section of the rural poor. Each of the projects will have an impact on employment, nutrition and income distribution as well as on increasing production. I welcome the fact that our efforts in respect of the special programme will be parallel to the response from a number of our partners in the EEC and of the European Commission.

I would like to have taken the opportunity of saying something about some of the conflicts that have featured so far in the debate but, as there are a number of Members anxious to contribute, it is better that I should draw my remarks to a close.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would take the liberty of reminding Deputies that this is a confined debate and that I will be calling on the Minister to conclude at 11.50.

Proinsias De Rossa

Will I be given the opportunity of moving my amendment?

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy will have that opportunity.

Mr. G. Collins

I recognise that this is a confined debate and that there are other speakers wishing to contribute. In an effort to facilitate them I will be very conscious of the time limit. Deputy De Rossa should be given the opportunity to move his amendment.

I welcome wholeheartedly the resolution put forward this morning by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I assure him that he will have our full scale support in this matter. We all agree particularly with the second paragraph in which is recalled the purposes of the UN. These include the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations among people and the achievement of international co-operation in solving international problems. The UN were brought into existence for the purpose of preserving peace. Since then it has done its best to fulfil that ideal.

I should like to refer briefly to the message of the Secretary-General in proclaiming the International Year of Peace in January when he exhorted members of the UN to act on behalf of the future well-being of all nations with the vision and forbearance that peace requires. There are many members of the UN, I think about 160.

Mr. G. Birmingham

One hundred and fifty-nine.

Mr. G. Collins

One would hope that the intention of all member states would be to ensure that the UN is given the opportunity of working effectively but that is not the case. Within the past couple of weeks there were questions here to the Minister for Defence asking why large countries such as the USSR have not contributed what they should towards peacekeeping efforts throughout the world. We have always done everything possible to ensure that the UN succeeds in its purpose and that will continue to be the case.

Reflecting on our involvement in the UN we can be confident that we have more than played our part. I am not saying that in any boastful way. We did what we believed was right. We have been involved in every peacekeeping effort throughout the world for the past 30 years, sometimes at great cost and I am not talking of financial cost but of the cost in terms of lives of Irish people.

I appeal to the Minister to do everything possible to ensure that all member states play their part to help the UN to do its job. There is the attitude on the part of some of the larger states that they should not be answerable to the UN. These larger states have only one vote, regardless of their size, but they, too, must work with and live side by side with smaller nations. This causes problems. Some time ago I was disturbed to read articles in leading American newspapers to the effect that the US would no longer be tolerant of member states of the UN who disagree with the US. I am glad that that is not official American policy but the fact that the matter was raised should put us on our guard to ensure that the American Government, the leader of the free world, should play a very active and positive role always in the UN.

I would have hoped that the ideal of peace which we all must support would be taken to heart by all member states of the UN and that perhaps we could hope for peace in those parts of the world where peace is long overdue. Our television screens bring us pictures of areas of conflict at a moment's notice but it is no pleasure for any of us to see pictures of the Iran-Iraq war in which many lives are being lost. If left to themselves these peoples might have been able to resolve the conflict. We can only hope that the UN will endeavour to bring reason and commonsense to prevail by way of an effort to end that war which has continued for more than six years. The Lebanon, too, is a sad story. That conflict has been in progress for a considerable time. At times Irish people express great concern for the safety of our troops who are engaged in UN peacekeeping efforts. There are occasions on which something goes wrong and questions are asked as to whether we should recall our troops. The other evening I was very glad to be reassured by General O'Callaghan that our troops are serving a most useful purpose in that part of the world. I wish them well in their efforts and trust that they will contribute to peace in the Lebanon.

Regarding other areas, we should not forget Afghanistan. On every occasion on which the opportunity presents itself, I mention that conflict. Afghanistan is a small country with a small population. During a Christmas period about five years ago it was invaded. The invasion was successful but there is conflict in the country and people are endeavouring to achieve freedom. There is much loss of life there also. I urge the Minister, though I do not think it is necessary to do so, to avail of every opportunity to ensure that Afghanistan is not forgotten.

The Central American scene is one that causes much concern. It is in the news everyday. Only this morning we heard of the statement from the White House regarding the failure of the President of the US to have sanctioned a sum of about $100 million by way of aid for the rebels in Nicaragua. I am speaking personally when I say that I am glad the US Congress took that decision and that the move for aid was not successful. The problems of Nicaragua have been discussed here on a number of occasions but I should like to see greater efforts being made by our Government and by our colleagues in the EC in the matter of achieving peace in that very troubled area.

The Minister has told us that his Department are finalising details of a programme of activities to mark the International Year of Peace. In this regard my party will support him thoroughly. On the broader front, if there is anything we can do in regard to supporting the United Nations, that we will do.

The final paragraph of the Minister's resolution calls for "real progress in accommodating the rights and identities of the two traditions which exist in Northern Ireland and in the promotion of lasting peace and stability throughout Ireland." I do not think it is necessary to do so, but I refer the Minister to the Hillsborough Agreement. This requires progress and measures "which will give substantial expression to the aim of underlying the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice." I am not alone in being dissatisfied with the statement of Sir Michael Havers on the continuation of the supergrass trials. This must be seen as a blow to the section of the agreement which I quoted. I deeply regret that these dreadful supergrass trials will continue.

I also note that the SDLP spokesman on legal affairs has said: "The statement is an appalling and misleading attempt to defend trials which are widely held in disrepute and which are a major factor in the undermining of public confidence in the administration of justice." I have no animosity towards the Minister but, when I asked him on a number of occasions to condemn openly and as strongly as we on this side condemn the use of supergrass trials, while not supporting such trials he did not feel strongly enough about them to condemn them. Perhaps if the Government and the Minister had openly condemned these trials, that would have made a difference. I refer the Minister to our Private Members' motion. If the Government had supported us by condemning supergrass trials that might have strengthened the Government's hand somewhat in dealing with this issue.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 1:

Between paragraphs (2) and (3) to insert the following new paragraph:

"(3) Reafirms the commitment of the Irish people to neutrality and pledges that Ireland will use its neutral status to actively promote peace and disarmament throughout the world."

I shall be brief in order to let the other speakers in. First, I warmly welcome the motion which the Government have tabled. Deputy Mac Giolla and I support its terms. Before the tabling of the motion in the Dáil we sought to have included in it a clause in relation to neutrality. Unfortunately that was refused. We were under the impression that the three parties, Labour, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Party I found that he was unaware of our proposal and had agreed to support our amendment here today. I urge the Minister in his final response to this debate to accept our amendment. There is no reason why the amendment as now worded should not be accepted unanimously by this House. We would then have a complete motion which was unanimously accepted.

I want to refer to a number of points in relation to neutrality and to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Neutrality is and ought to be the cornerstone of our foreign policy. However, the strength and seriousness of our neutrality and how it is defined will largely determine what influence we have in the promotion of peace and disarmament throughout the world. It appears to me and to The Workers' Party that neutrality generally is being gradually eroded. The most serious erosion was the European Act signed last month by the Minister. I know that it must come before the House for ratification but, assuming it is ratified as it stands, it commits us to closer foreign policy co-operation with other EC countries. In itself, in principle there is nothing terribly wrong in that, but the NATO countries are allowed specifically to opt out of a particular process in relation to their Western European Union commitments and their NATO commitments.

There should be a specific article in that agreement allowing Ireland also to pursue its policy of neutrality and non-alignment with other EC countries and non-EC countries. It is my firm belief that we should be pursuing in Europe a policy of non-alignment for Europe and a non-nuclear Europe. That is the direction in which we would have a positive role to play, a positive role for our neutrality. Neutrality does not mean isolationism or being irrelevant. If we choose the correct role in relation to non-alignment and neutrality, we can have an important effect on the lessening of tensions through the world.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are five minutes left.

Proinsias De Rossa

I shall finish on this point. We all hope that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will succeed, but it cannot succeed just on hopes. I urge the Government: at this point, the initiative is in their court. They must offer an olive branch to the Unionists in Northern Ireland in order to enable them to approach this agreement in a calm way. There are weaknesses in the agreement. This has been best expressed by Deputy Mac Giolla in his statement that its weakness is that it is an agreement between Britain and the Republic of Ireland and not between the Falls Road and the Shankill Road. That is its fundamental weakness. We must do everything in our power from this side to assist the Unionists in getting off the hook on which they are impaled at present. I urge the Minister and the Taoiseach to approach the matter in that way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call Deputy Barnes. She has four minutes.

Mrs. Barnes

I shall try to confine myself to three brief points and hope to be able to give a moment or two to our esteemed colleague across the House who now graces the European Parliament.

Much emphasis has been placed this morning, and rightly so, on the particular and almost unique position in which Ireland finds itself traditionally and historically. I am glad of the positive spirit in which the resolution was welcomed by everybody. We could play a role out of proportion to our size in world politics. We have already established that fact, particularly through our membership of the United Nations. In this incredibly sensitive world, teetering on the edge of self-obliteration, this role was never more needed or more called for. I uphold totally our neutrality, not in any isolationist, passive or cowardly way as it is sometimes put forward, but as a way of aligning ourselves with other countries who have used neutrality responsibly also. In an aligned way we can act as a buffer, a human, calm, sane intermediary between the super powers. I know we shall have an opportunity for further discussion when we are debating the changes in the Treaty of Rome.

I welcome the fact that the Minister this morning mentioned an area which can be forgotten because this war, like so many others, has gone on for so long and is distant from us. I refer to Afghanistan, which is a running sore. We have a great role to play in drawing attention to our concern and commitment also about Central America, in particular centering on Nicaragua. I welcome the decision taken. The world politics that we all should be playing could be summed up in Senator Tip O'Neill's alleged words — that in certain areas it is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of conscience. Never more was conscience needed, particularly in this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Niall Andrews has one minute.

Mr. N. Andrews

This resembles the European Parliament. First, I welcome the debate on foreign affairs. It is most important that we should have a discussion on this subject and on the subject of peace and development. It is a pity that we are confined to so short a period for discussion. Perhaps because of that we are confronted by a script from the Minister which I think is inadequate. It does not and cannot deal with the issues of peace and development in the world as they should be dealt with. Like the front bench spokesman on Foreign Affairs for the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Collins, I am delighted that the United States Congress and the people of the United States have forced defeat on the proposed aid package to the Contras. I hope that this will continue. The Sandinistas are not Communists and never were but they are encouraged to seek aid from Communist powers, which is a tragedy. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said here on this issue. I am delighted with the situation in the Philippines and I wish Cory Aquino well. I hope that Father Rudi Romano will be found and released very soon. I also hope that in due course we will have a proper debate on issues such as this in the House because we are part of the greater European community.

I hope when the Minister goes to the Council of Ministers he will seek meaningful sanctions against South Africa and pursue the matter of sanctions against them, because not enough is being done in that area. The sanctions introduced by the Council of Ministers are inadequate and have had very little effect on South Africa. I urge the Minister to go back to the Council of Ministers, as requested by the European Parliament, so that he can do something meaningful to bring about an end to apartheid.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

I should like to thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate. Obviously, in view of the interest shown, a longer debate would have been welcomed. I wish to deal with some of the points raised.

The aim of the resolution is to focus on the main objectives of the year of peace and the subject of this international year is wide ranging and capable of many applications. The resolution has endeavoured to comprehend the concept of peace in its broadest sense. In addition, it specifically addresses the question of peace and reconciliation in Ireland and, therefore, is appropriate to the resolution. However, the resolution is not designed to set down each specific facet of the ideal of peace nor indeed the instruments of peace, however relevant. For this reason, the amendment proposed by The Workers' Party is not suitable in the context of the resolution as it is constructed at present. I have no fault to find with the sentiments and the thrust of the suggested amendment but it would be misplaced in this resolution which is intentionally broad in its scope. It exhorts all Governments, not just one Government, to work for peace and that is why I had reservations in relation to the amendment proposed by Deputy De Rossa.

A number of valuable points were made and I am glad that a number of speakers referred to Afghanistan because we have consistently supported United Nations resolutions on the situation there and we also co-sponsored resolutions passed by the Human Rights Commission. We will continue to do so because this conflict—as well as those in the Middle East, Central America, Kampuchea and particularly Iran-Iraq — has gone on too long.

I also wish to refer to some things which Deputy Haughey said in his contribution. He mentioned the draft EC treaty which will be the subject of a debate here and it cannot come into effect until it is ratified by the 12 Parliaments of the European Community. The debate will take place some time within the next few months and we will have the opportunity of going over all the arguments. I wish to draw attention to the selective quotations from the draft EC treaty which Deputy Lenihan used last week during Question Time and which Deputy Haughey did this morning when he referred to Article 6 of the Act. Deputy Haughey quoted 6A this morning but he left out the last sentence which said that they were ready to coordinate their positions more closely on the political and economic aspects of security. That could not be any clearer but Deputy Haughey did not quote it this morning. He also omitted, as Deputy Lenihan did last week, any reference to 6C, which says that nothing in this title shall impede closer co-operation in the field of security between certain high ranking contracting parties in the framework of the Western European union or the Atlantic Alliance. Any country who wishes to pursue the defence implications under this treaty of security in Europe should do so under the Western European union in NATO. It is not appropriate for discussion among the 12 member states and I have made that clear on umpteen occasions in this House. There is no question of a change in this regard and this applies especially to Ireland in its neutral position.

I now want to turn to Deputy Haughey's comments on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and his castigation of the Taoiseach and myself for using emotive words about him. As I said in the debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement last November and which I repeated since, if Deputy Haughey and his party feel that there are constitutional implications in the Anglo-Irish agreement, there is a course open to them, to test its constitutionality in the courts. They did not choose to do that yet they have implied on a number of occasions that there are constitutional implications in the agreement. Let them test it in the courts. Deputy Haughey said that I used the word "treachery" and that is correct. I used it in this House in relation to Deputy Lenihan because, before there was any sign of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, signed last November, Deputy Lenihan, presumably on the instructions of his leader, went to America and endeavoured to influence Irish-American opinion at the highest level against the agreement which he had not seen and did not know what it contained. I do not know if there is an example anywhere else in the democratic world of an Opposition party endeavouring to undermine the position of an inter-Governmental agreement at a sensitive stage in negotiations. I doubt very much if we could find such an example. I do not apologise for the use of the word "treachery" because it was reprehensible of Deputy Lenihan to do such a thing. Deputy Haughey said that when he was in American last week he referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, he referred to it in a most selective way. He quoted the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Brussels last December in which he made some unfortunate remarks by Deputy Haughey did not refer to the fact that in the House of Commons the following day the words were withdrawn by the British Government.

Mr. N. Andrews

The words were said.

Mr. P. Barry

If that is not a selective use of words and a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the position I do not know what is. It is regrettable that Deputy Haughey refers to the US as being the leader of the free and democratic world. When they decide to throw their weight behind any cause they can be dramatic and decisive. The United States very clearly threw their weight in a decisive and dramatic way behind the Anglo-Irish Agreement by their vote in the house of Representatives yesterday to provide aid to back this agreement. It does not do the reputation of this country, and in particular that of the Opposition, any good to undermine the agreement and to try to wean Irish opinion away from the agreement which is backed by the vast majority of the people in this country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the motion an amendment in the names of Deputies De Rossa, and Mac Giolla.

Mr. P. Barry

If the House wishes I will accept the terms of the amendment. I would prefer if it was a broader issue and was an exhortation of all Governments rather than to one particular Government. If necessary I will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.