I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, although I feel that you are perhaps being a little generous as I understand a quarter of an hour is the time allotted for summing up. Am I correct? Secondly, I wish to thank Senator Ferris for being so generous as to take his seat and allow me to proceed.
Although the Coalition parties felt disposed to amend the original motion proposed by Senator Brendan Ryan and myself, and although the overwhelming majority of speakers could not accept the full implications of the original motion, I would very much like, on behalf of both Senator Ryan, an expectant father, and myself, to thank Senators for their extremely constructive criticism of the proposal which we brought before the House, and to thank them also for their interesting and, at times, provocative and informative contributions. Even though Senators have chosen not to accept the motion in its original form, and even though some, at least, will be voting in favour of the amendment, there has been a very good spirit throughout this debate as one might expect in a debate which not only deals with the local situation in Ireland but tries to give relevance to the Irish situation throughout the world.
We are both very grateful for the generous allotment of time, a Chathaoirligh, given to this motion. Perhaps in view of the comments that have been made by many Senators, it is not altogether surprising. We were both conscious of the fact that we presented the Seanad with a banquet of motions and Senators barely had time to enjoy one single course in the banquet so presented. However, this leads me on to another query. Have we allowed enough time and enough occasions to debate motions? There are 52 weeks in the year and we certainly do not have 52 motions. It is an opportunity for Senators to debate a wide range of issues, to get publicity for them, and to promote discussion of them. I welcome such an opportunity.
Because of the impossibility of finding time to discuss all the various elements in this motion throughout the course of a year in the Seanad, it is, perhaps, just as well that we endeavoured to put too much in to it and to embrace too much as a result. The issues encompass some of the most important matters of our time, such as nuclearism, both in the form of the arms race to oblivion and also in the form of nuclear pollution such as we have seen so well followed up and described in "Windscale Pollution of the Irish Sea". The Windscale pollution is only one aspect of pollution with its intra- and international implications.
Only this week we read in the Sunday newspapers in Northern Ireland of hundreds of tons of toxic chemical waste being dumped into the bar of Belfast Lough. We now have the Irish Sea being polluted from both the western and the eastern side of it. As I emphasised in proposing this motion two weeks ago, that also has implications for the food chain of fish life in the Irish Sea. Of course wherever pollution occurs for the food chain of animal life it ultimately gets into the human food chain. Not only do we have parthenogenic and genetic concern, particularly in relation to the effects of nuclear radiation, but we also have the toxic effect on vulnerable cells and organs such as the liver and the kidneys.
Pollution moves us into the whole area of ecological constraint to technological growth, and the need to develop new attitudes which are consistently pro-life in earnest, and not selectively so. It is a matter of a new attitude of mind to cope with the new dimension and the new propensity for self-destruction which mankind is now launching upon itself through the dark side of our nature to which Senator Higgins referred, and which refers to the dark side of technological development when so much could be expected of it for the benefit of mankind.
Senator Higgins developed his theme by appealing for a changed mentality or, as he put it, an integrated rather than a fragmented nature of approach. Like other Senators, he emphasised the irony of poverty and pollution side by side with plenty, the pleading of so many people in the world on the one hand and the hoarding by the lucky few on the other. In this respect while President Reagan chose to allocate — and let me say this for the benefit of the press who quoted me wrongly on the last occasion — $650 billion for the new MX system of missiles, $40 billion, as was pointed out by Senator Ryan, would be enough to meet the basic needs of the deprived people of the world.
Senator Dooge introduced a warning about the pollution of outer space through militarism and militarisation. Let us not divert our attention too exclusively to nuclearism. There are many other things we should be concerned about — the potential development of accuracy for destruction of laser beams and such like.
I should like to comment on the remarks made by Senator Hanafin. He stressed a very important point — speaking from the heart as he always does — when he emphasised the effect Russian youth had on his daughter when visiting that great country. He referred to the horror that youth have in Russia just as much as they have in the West for the potential of these ghastly weapons. Someone else emphasised that while we are free to protest in the West, they are not free to do so in the East. He emphasised the peace loving as well as the peace-making challenge to people such as ourselves and he alluded to Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Senator Rogers chose to emphasise — with a point which was picked up in the press — that the victors would be those who had died in a nuclear holocaust, that the ones who survived would be the real losers. Senator Eoin Ryan dealt with the Russian dimension, too, when he suggested that there was a lot of myth perpetrated in the West about the potential for nuclear violence on behalf of the Russian people and that they are just as scared of America as America seems to be scared of them and that we should consider this when we are dealing with the whole matter of East-West relationships. Senator McGonagle also emphasised this point. He said there was a great fear in Russia of the United States of America.
I was delighted to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs making an absolute commitment to neutrality on behalf of the State. He gave a graphic account of the £1 million spent per minute on arms, and he indicated that this could be spent on Third World development and for the use of the poor and the needy.
Senator Honan, speaking from the heart, reminded us, as she always does, that just as County Antrim is in Ireland so is County Clare, and that we speak for the whole country when we speak about these matters because they affect us all. I was glad to hear Senator Bulbulia emphasise that there was a danger of making a sacred cow out of neutrality. That brings us on to what we mean by positive neutrality. I must apologise to Senator Fallon as I was called out during his speech but I look forward to reading it. Senator O'Leary confirmed what we realised early on, that the motion was perhaps too ambitious, although as I have said we do not make any apology for it.
With regard to the war in Ireland, however, I must emphasise that having lived in it and close to it for the past 15 years, it may not be a declared war, but there is a simmering undeclared civil war situation in the North of Ireland. It has been allowed to persist because neither London nor Dublin have been prepared to face up together in relation to Northern Ireland to the implications for them of the resolution of a conflict which they failed — and I emphasise it again — to resolve completely some 60 years ago.
Again, I appeal to the press to make a correction. In extrapolating the casualty figures for Northern Ireland into Britain, we are talking in terms of 75,000 dead and three quarters of a million wounded if these figures were transferred to Britain. If that is not a war, I do not know what is. On the night before last the hopes of 175 people were blown out when they lost their jobs as their factory was blown apart. Last night, within six miles of my own home, three people were killed. There is now a wall in Belfast that separates the two sides. Unless we come to grips with this fact, we are doomed in Northern Ireland to continue to go round in circles, participating in a debate in a climate of unreality. Until we face up to the reality of the unresolved conflict in relation to Northern Ireland between Dublin and London, we in Northern Ireland will be unable to break out from the trap into which we have been pushed for far too long.
Finally, with regard to non-violent action, which was the other contentious issue, I am glad Senator McGuinness dealt with this. It is time we questioned and threw this challenge to people who perpetrate violent acts. A violent act — and I speak from very close personal experience of people who have been involved — does not just affect those against whom it is directed. It also affects the perpetrators both in their spirit and in their minds. Violence is defined elsewhere as the physical, sexual or psychological penetration of one human being by another against their will, and force is the threat to use such violence. It matters not whether one is wearing a uniform or not. You cannot change the definition.
However, I should like to emphasise that a uniform confers legitimacy which helps many people to live with the result of violent acts they have been obliged to do in the course of duty. Once we talk of legitimacy, however, we are faced with awkward questions in a country where there is, as yet, no consensus, where we have not as yet come to an accommodation which would give the forces of law and order the legitimacy of acting on behalf of a united people.
If we are to move towards a non-violent society, we urgently need a constructive political solution to sectarianism in the North, to partition on this island. Only then will we start to get rid of the serious psychological and social problems associated with the guilt of violence which comes to us from our past. Positive neutrality is something that starts in one's own heart. It is to do with peace and it is to do with returning to the hearths in our homes, or, as Schumacher has called it, becoming a home-comer and leaving the ford stampede.
Positive neutrality should be seen, therefore, as an expression of Ireland's message to the world. We are uniquely placed in relation to the Third World, having suffered from colonialism, and having been part of the colonial problem. We have a network of missionaries, to which people have alluded, around the world who relate to what is best in the tradition of service among the Irish people. We have a young generation who require a new lead. Prepare them to meet the youth of the world to promote an anti-nuclear, peace-making pro-life global society. Prepare them to do this by opening up the languages of the world to our Irish school children so that they can go out once again as the new missionaries in the technological age to promote the new technology for constructive purposes and to persuade the youth in the rest of the world that we have had enough destruction in our time.
I should like to thank Senator Ferris for his generosity in allowing me a few extra minutes. I thank him also for highlighting for us the problem of how capital gets caught up in militarism, and how we will need a new politic to divert capital employed for military activity towards the needs of a starving Third World. He referred indirectly to the button brains on the two sides. Button brains are a symptom of the disease which I discovered two years ago of advanced nuclear sclerosis which has affected the aged men and the middle-aged woman who inhabit the Kremlin, the White House and 10 Downing Street.
I should also like to take this opportunity to support the women of Greenham Common. Those women have stood out for something which, if the world is to survive, will be recognised as a turning point in history. Therefore, as I conclude I am disappointed that Senators have not come to terms with our original motion, but I am glad that in the terms they have chosen to discuss it, we have had such a constructive and such a generous debate. I do not intend, therefore, to oppose the amendment.