I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to make a clear statement of Ireland's foreign policy in the light of recent events in Iran and Afghanistan.
I am extremely glad that we are able to take this motion today. When the motion was first brought to the attention of the House a number of Senators from all sides stressed that they felt the Seanad is a body particularly suitable for a discussion on foreign affairs in a cool, rational and non-party manner. I very much hope that the debate which we are about to begin will be extremely constructive and will be free from party positions being taken. The seconder of the motion is Senator Murphy who will speak directly after me, I understand.
I should like to begin by quoting from a pamphlet called "Irish Foreign Policy". It is a statement by Deputy Garret FitzGerald when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs in May 1973. At the beginning of that statement, made in the Dáil, he set out the basic objectives of Irish foreign policy in the view of the then Government. I will not read the basic objectives set out, but it would be worthwhile taking note of one or two of them:
(a) to help maintain world peace and reduce tensions between the super-powers, between blocs and between States;
That was set as the first objective of Irish foreign policy. The second objective dealt with Northern Ireland, and the fourth one was:
(d) to secure Ireland's economic interests abroad, thus facilitating economic and social progress at home, and particularly to secure our interests in the economic, social and regional policies of the EEC;
A lot of water—perhaps it would be more suitable to say a lot of oil—has flowed under a lot of bridges since that statement was made in the relative calm of May 1973. The world scene has changed totally since then.
We were quite unaware of the new factor in world affairs which was to influence international politics almost completely in the following year. That was the sudden and dramatic shift in oil prices and the realisation by oil producers that they held in their hands not only an economic weapon but a political weapon which has recently taken a new and dramatic twist. In the light of the events following May 1973 I am quite sure that that fourth aspiration would have probably been placed second—to secure Ireland's economic interests abroad. There has been an increasingly new ball game since 1973.
I have thought about Irish foreign policy recently and anything I will say about it in the course of this speech will be in the form of a series of questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whom I am very glad to have here. Many Irish people are slightly confused and always. perhaps have been confused about Irish foreign policy. We are aware that foreign policy is no longer something rather esoteric which in a small country like Ireland has very little relevance to what might be described as the ordinary life of the people. In the old days people felt that way and this was reflected in the lack of effort by Governments to educate public opinion on foreign policy.
The position has changed dramatically. A modern Minister for Foreign Affairs of this country carries an enormous burden. That fact should be constantly communicated to the people. The people are well capable of understanding the intricacies of foreign affairs and foreign relations. I would hope the very welcome willingness of the Minister to come into this House today might be an indication of a trend in that direction.
One of the main reasons why foreign policy must be made clear to every man, woman and child in the country is that as well as the arrival of oil as an enormous factor in world politics, there is the new and dreadful situation for this generation, that behind all the spectacle of world politics, the interactions of powers, great and small, there is the terrible threat of nuclear war.
In these circumstances there is not anybody in any country who is a passive bystander in foreign affairs. That old expression about armchair generals no longer has relevance because there will not be generals smoking cigars in armchairs sending young men to war because in any future world conflict we will all be involved and in the front line. In the United States recently I heard a slightly academic debate as to whether women should be registered for draft into the US Army, considering that women, men and children will all be in the front line in the event of any conflict requiring that kind of registration or draft. Therefore, there is a question of what the role of a country like Ireland would be in world affairs. We have to ask ourselves what could we do on the very large world stage when we are such a very small cipher.
So soon after St. Patrick's Day, with its usual Irish-American interaction, we are well aware that despite our very small size and our economic weakness we are, in fact, a very well-known country, particularly in the world's largest power. In my view, Ireland has a voice which could be made a voice that people would listen to. Being an independent neutral nation which commands some respect in the world means that we must have a voice and that we must use it. We should use that voice to inform ourselves and the world on foreign affairs. We should use it where at all possible to mediate in any circumstances where it looks as if Ireland would be an acceptable mediator: we should use any talent and skill we have to mediate and we should be very quick to give credit and praise where they are due.
Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer occasions where that seems to arise on the world stage, but we should use that voice to protest meaningfully when countries great or small break all the rules of international behaviour. It seems to many people, and it seems to me, that Ireland has an uncertainty about the kind of voice we could have in international affairs. Apart from well-cushioned censure motions in the UN and various other forums, we do not seem to have taken a separate initiative or a particular stance which we might have been qualified to take because of the world standing which I believe was gained for us over the years by successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs and, in my view, brought to its height by Deputy FitzGerald when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I do not think it is a matter of pride that we have joined so well with all these various bodies to which we are aligned in condemning recent events in Iran or Afghanistan. We have certainly enthusastically joind in strong condemnations which have been shown to be ineffectual in this instance. Perhaps we should look at what we actually have done since the invasion of Afghanistan on 27 or 28 December 1979. We sent a note to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires on January 4 protesting against this invasion. We issued a joint statement with the nine countries of the EEC. We voted on the UN Resolution of January 14 condemning the invasion, and we joined in a statement from Foreign Ministers in Brussels on 15 January. We also have supported the idea of a neutrality status for Afghanistan.
These do not really amount to actions: they amount to statements—they are not doing, they are saying. It has been shown that saying has not cut any ice in this instance. A great many people in Ireland, and I certainly, are confused as to what Afghanistan was before it was pulled so abruptly behind the iron curtain. It seems to have been a country which for a great number of years was an uncomfortable buffer zone between opposing great powers, a very mountainous country which was self-sufficient in food, poor but not in a desperate condition. It was always considered that the British lion roared at the Russian bear across the intervening zone of Afghanistan. In recent years, because of its importance as a buffer between the Russians and the oil producing countries, Afghanistan was receiving enthusiastic aid from the US and Moscow, aid which obviously was politically motivated, something that is part of modern politics.
All sorts of upheavals began in Afghanistan in 1973 with the overthrow of a monarchy but the country really began to simmer in 1978 and there was a succession of dramatic events one of which was that the US Ambassador was killed there about a year ago. The upheaval has continued since then. President Teraki was endorsed in Moscow by the Russians until he was overthrown by a man called Amin. Amin was not popular with the Afghan people and he was losing ground quite rapidly. I am quite sure that there were contacts and connections between this man and the United States who were anxious that Afghanistan would not go the way it seemed to be going, which was straight into a Communist regime totally sustained by Russia. However, Amin faced the same fate as he had bestowed on Teraki and just after Christmas there was yet another upheaval and Amin was killed. That same day, from Moscow, the Russians flew in to take over the country.
On 28 December Russian troops arrived and it is estimated that at the moment in Afghanistan there are 105,000 Russian troops. The reason for such enormous numbers is that in a country like Afghanistan, which does not have any vast, flat plains to send large tanks over, mountain warfare must be resorted to by the invading army, because the Afghan mountain fighters for centuries have been very adept at hiding themselves in the mountains.
The significance of the Afghanistan invasion compared to what has happened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia is that this was, in fact, the first invasion of what was a neutral country not accepted as part of the Soviet bloc since the second world war. Such an enormous and blatant invasion obviously had some very important reasons behind it. The important reasons behind this invasion are the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. It is important that we realise that if Russia advances any step further in that area she could quite quickly control the supply of oil to the whole of western Europe. If Russia should gain control of Iran and Saudi Arabia—and Iran being in such a very unstable position at the moment is a great worry to all countries—western Europe would lose overnight its own freedom of movement because, as we have seen, oil seems to control the economies of the western world. A most alarming result of the invasion of Afghanistan by the Russian army is that it completely disrupted progress towards ratification of SALT II which had been proceeding in the American Senate. The American President had been negotiating and pushing for the Senate to ratify that treaty against quite strong resistance. It had been scheduled for debate in January for signing in February. Of course, the fact that this whole movement towards ratification of that treaty, which is absolutely and vitally essential for every one of us trying to put some reason, as it does, on the crazy arms race, has been disrupted is an extremely serious element in this whole thing. The Russians must have been fully aware that this would happen.
The debate that has gone on in this country, in the media and so on, over the Afghanistan invasion seems to have concentrated on one area only, sport. It might be a good thing to look for a moment at what else has been done by the US in her attempt to emphasise to Russia that in the delicate balance of world relations there are things that cannot be done and steps that cannot be taken. Steps have been taken which fall short of the real military confrontation which is so unthinkable and which must remain unthinkable. The other steps that were taken were a grain embargo, technology embargo, cultural relations cut off, some movement of ships in the oceans of that area and, lastly, a request by President Carter to have an Olympic boycott. The idea of an Olympic boycott came from sport writers in the United States, I was told when I was there.
I would like to see Ireland, instead of talking about it, doing something about it. Could we talk about why, for example, our Minister for Agriculture urges that we should sell subsidised butter to Russia from the EEC? Why can we not, for example, call off Córas Tráchtála's planned exhibition of Irish technology in Russia? Why do we not call it off totally and say that is why we are calling it off? Why do we not call off cultural exchanges? Finally, why do the Irish Government not take a firm lead on the Olympic Games? I do not mean that we should do anything like interfering with people's freedom to go if they wish to go. I am talking about taking a strong position and strongly discouraging Irish athletes from going.
To go to the Olympic Games is a political gesture in itself. We all are aware that the Olympic Games in Russia are, in fact, a political event. They are not a wonderful festival of young athletes competing against each other in a spirit of freedom. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the International Olympic Council have allowed the Olympic Games to drift into a situation where they are no longer a sporting festival of freedom, where they have become extremely political. The Russians have greeted the decision to allow the Olympic Games to be held in Moscow as a tribute to Russia's role in the freedom of the world. They have claimed it as such.
I believe an Irish presence, encouraged by an Irish Government, in Moscow is a very dangerous step towards the creation of a situation where Russia begins to feel that you can actually get away with anything, that all those people will draw back as well and will not take any real steps, they will just talk.
Ireland has an enormous amount to gain from having maximum friendly relations with the United States. We have entered a period where there has been, apparently, a new and vigorous approach towards the Northern Ireland tragedies, an approach which involves internationalism and talking to people in other countries. It seems to me that we could, in fact, use the enormous goodwill which exists in the United States to help us to make Britain realise her responsibilities in the whole Northern Ireland area, which would put real pressure on Great Britain to use the kind of diplomatic initiatives that she is well able to use to begin to cut through the layers of tragedy, history and misunderstanding that keeps Northern Ireland in its thrawn of violence. We need to have the help of the United States Government in this very important effort. It escapes me, for this reason and for the other reasons I have mentioned, why Ireland seems to teeter on the brink of inarticulateness in its reaction to the Afghanistan crisis.
I believe that words simply do not mean very much in these circumstances and words should be backed up by actions. I, therefore, would like a firm statement by the Minister on why we have not taken action, only words, on this issue. I would like a final statement on whether the Irish Government will be passive in the area of the Olympic Games or whether it will take a directing role in this issue, as I believe they should.