I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of developments in the European Communities since January 1984.
Developments in the European Communities: Motion.
1984 is the year the European Community came to grips with the acute problems with which it had been beset for some time and took decisions which allowed it to move forward again. The second half of the year is, of course, the period of Ireland's third term of office in the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. All our efforts are being devoted to resolving the complex range of problems with which we were faced at the beginning of the Presidency.
I will be reporting to the European Parliament on 12 December on the Presidency and I would welcome the opportunity at a later date in this debate of reporting to this House on the experiences of our term of office. For this reason I will not go too deeply into the experience of our Presidency but will look at the major issues which have concerned the Community in 1984 as a whole.
As Senators are aware, the period under review covered a critical stage in the development of the Community institutions. The European Council, at Stuttgart in June 1983, recognised that a major negotiation should take place to tackle the most pressing problems facing the Community so as to provide a solid basis for its further development over the remainder of the decade. This examination of Community policies was considered to be necessary so as to improve their effectiveness, and to determine the priority areas for new Community action. Central to this exercise were the questions of the future financing of the Community, the review of the Common Agricultural Policy, the reform of the structural funds, the development of new policies, enlargement and questions of budgetary imbalances.
While some progress was made at the Athens European Council in December 1983 there is no agreement on the overall package. I should stress that the various elements involved in the negotiations were closely interlinked; member states were reluctant to agree on solutions to some of the issues in the absence of a clear idea as to the shape of the final compromises on other items of direct interest to them.
At the beginning of the year, therefore, the Community appeared to face a gloomy future; insufficient revenue was available even for 1984 to fund the Community's ongoing policies; no agreement was in sight on future financing — thus inhibiting the development of urgently needed new common policies; Community farmers — Irish farmers certainly — felt unsure and threatened by the possibility of severe controls in the dairy sector; the problems in the enlargement negotiations seemed daunting; the difficulties associated with the British and German contributions to the Community budget remained unresolved.
The priority of the European Councils held under the French Presidency was to reach agreement on the range of issues identified at Stuttgart as being central to the reorganisation and development of the Community. I need not remind Senators that the run-up to the Brussels Summit involved for Ireland a major campaign to ensure that our dairying sector would not suffer as a result of the Commission's proposals for a super-levy on Community milk production. I will return to this aspect in a moment.
At the Brussels Summit, agreement was reached on most of the items under discussion. However, it was not possible to agree on two important issues: the control of milk production by a super-levy; and the British and German contributions to the Community budget. Of course, the question which was of greatest interest to Ireland was that of the proposed super-levy on milk. We should perhaps recall at this stage the background to the discussions at Brussels on the super-levy.
For Ireland the Commission's super-levy proposal would have meant a cut in milk production of almost 14 per cent on our 1983 level. This was clearly unacceptable in itself. Moreover, if adopted, it would have ruled out future expansion in the dairy sector. Following an unprecedented campaign by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture, myself and other Ministers, our partners accepted that we had a special case and responded accordingly. We have discussed the substance of this response on a number of previous occasions. I will confine myself, therefore, to saying that given the background of the Community's serious financial difficulties, the surplus situation in the milk market, and the considerable production cutbacks which other member states had to accept, the final arrangements achieved for the Irish dairying industry were remarkably favourable.
I should say also that I welcome the report on the super-levy which the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation prepared and which sets out clearly and comprehensively the vital national interest involved for Ireland in this issue.
In the overall agricultural context, the average price increase arising from the annual package agreed in March was approximately 2.5 per cent in Irish pounds when both the support price changes and the green rate adjustments were taken into account. The overall gain to the agricultural sector was of the order of £250 million including the very substantial savings from not having to apply the super-levy on the same basis as most other member states.
Before concluding my remarks on developments in the agricultural sector in the first half of 1984, I should add that, under the FEOGA guarantee section, Ireland received some £314.4 million from the fund, after allowing for charges collected and paid into the fund. In addition, some £5.8 million was received, or allocated under the FEOGA guidance section.
The agreements reached by the Agricultural Council at the end of March on the adoption of the Common Agricultural Policy gave a new impetus to the efforts which were being made to complete the review of Community policies which had been requested by the European Council at Stuttgart in June 1983. A new mood of confidence, and of willingness to compromise, was discernible in the run-up to the European Council at Fontainebleau in June. This was reflected at Fontainebleau by the fact that agreement was reached on the issues which had remained outstanding from the Stuttgart package. I might recall these briefly. A solution was found to, perhaps, the most intractable problem, that of the British and German contributions to the Community budget. As Senators are aware, this problem has been a major distraction for the Community. It has affected the development and indeed the vitality of the Community in recent years. While temporary solutions have, in the past, been arranged for this problem, it continued to resurface and overshadow the other issues facing the Community. Under the agreed arrangement the UK is to be paid a lump sum of 1,000 million ECUs for 1984; and, for 1985 and some years thereafter — so long as the Community's VAT limit is maintained at 1.4 per cent the UK will be paid 66 per cent of the gap between its share of VAT payments and its share of Community expenditure. This arrangement does not strike at fundamental Community principles but represents a pragmatic arrangement to resolve a long-standing Community problem.
The European Council agreed that the VAT contributions by member states to the Community budget should be raised from 1.0 per cent to 1.4 per cent by 1 January 1986 at the latest. Moreover it was agreed that this rate may be further increased to 1.6 per cent on January 1988, by unanimous decision of the Council and after agreement has been given in accordance with national procedures. One should not under-estimate the importance of this agreement; it will enable the Community to fund its ongoing policies, meet the costs of enlargement and develop the new common policies which are urgently required to tackle the pressing social and economic problems which now confront the peoples of Europe.
Enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal is, as anticipated, one of the dominant issues of the year and of our Presidency. Our objective has been, and remains, to complete these negotiations by the end of the year, thus allowing adequate time for parliamentary ratifications to take place so as to enable Spain and Portugal to join the Community on 1 January 1986.
Portugal and Spain applied for membership of the Community in March and July 1977, respectively. However, the progress of the negotiations over the next seven years was extremely slow, with the result that the Irish Presidency was faced in July with a situation where the most difficult and sensitive issues in the negotiations were still outstanding. Inevitably, of course, in any negotiations, the most difficult issues arise towards the end. The major issues outstanding at the start of our Presidency were agriculture, wine, olive oil, fisheries, industrial tariff dismantling and social affairs.
Senators will be aware that the European Council in March and June, to which I have referred earlier, had set 30 September as the target date for the completion of the negotiations. However, even when this target date of 30 September was being set, it was appreciated that it would be next to impossible to achieve. At the same time, the existence of this target date helped exert pressure on all concerned to advance the work as quickly as possible.
Perhaps, I could, for a moment, put the enlargement negotiations in a broader context. This deadline of 1 January 1986 for accession — and this is the deadline that really matters — is of vital importance for the Community in that two members states, the Federal Republic of Germany and, to a lesser degree, the Netherlands, have directly linked their agreement on increasing the Community's own resources as from 1 January 1986 to the enlargement of the Community, as from that date also. The basic political and economic reality is, therefore, that the availability of increased own resources to the Community is directly linked to enlargement. Hence, the vital importance of this issue for the future development of the Community and its range of existing and planned new policies.
As to the negotiations themselves there are, in reality, two sets of negotiations — that between the existing member states to agree on common positions to present to Spain and Portugal, and that between the Community collectively and each of the applicant states. The basic strategy of the Irish Presidency has been, as an immediate priority, to try to secure internal Community positions on all the major negotiating issues. Until this is done and until the applicant states see what is on the table in all vital areas, it can hardly be expected that the final stage of real negotiations can be activated.
In pursuance of this strategy, the Presidency has been trying to accelerate the negotiations by isolating and extracting the central political issues from each chapter and presenting these in short texts suitable for political consideration and decision. Moreover, the Presidency recently decided to put forward a number of these central political issues in the form of a composite framework package, or mini-package, as it has become known. The thinking behind this approach was that the obvious spread of compromise and sacrifice involved, and visible, in a package would allow member states to make concessions more easily on issues of individual sensitivity for them. An outcome of this approach was that, at the Council on 22 and 23 October, Community negotiating positions on four key chapters, olive oil, imports of sugar into Portugal, social affairs and the rate of dismantlement of Spanish high tariffs, were agreed on.
An important consequence of the acceptance of this package is that the range of issues on which the Community has to reach internal agreement has now been significantly narrowed. This will, in turn, allow for a greater concentration, and greater pressure to be exerted, on what are now the major outstanding problems, that is wine, fisheries and the arrangements to apply to the export of Spanish fruit and vegetables to the Community and the import of Northern products into Spain. I should add that it has already proved possible, as a result of the progress achieved during the past months, to sign a joint statement with Portugal, declaring that, as there had been agreement on a large number of chapters in the negotiations, it was possible for both the Community and Portugal to "acknowledge the irreversibility of the process of Portuguese integration into the European Communities".
The Presidency has, in addition, called a considerable number of additional meetings and Councils, the most recent extra Council being, in fact, held yesterday. We have also held a series of intensive bilateral meetings, including a weeklong tour of all Community capitals undertaken at my request by the Minister of State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.
Finally, in an attempt to clarify fully Portuguese and Spanish positions, the Presidency, with the Commission, conducted a series of discussions with the applicant states over three days in Brussels last week. Our hope is that all these preparations will enable us to make a substantial advance in the negotiations at a three-day Council and meetings with the applicant states next week from 26-28 November. But I do not by any means under estimate the difficulties — the very real difficulties — that still lie ahead.
Wine and fisheries are turning out to be the most difficult and sensitive issues in the negotiations. In this regard, I have already stated on a number of occasions that this Government will, as in the past, continue to defend and advance the best interests of Irish fishermen and the Irish fishing industry. This is, and will remain, the national priority in the negotiations for us. In this regard, the comprehensive report of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation is timely and I welcome its publication. I would also like to congratulate the chairman and members of the committee on the considerable amount of time and work which they put into this report.
The remaining difficulties notwithstanding, I still remain confident that we can still conclude the negotiations by the end of the year. Already the status of the negotiations has been qualitatively transformed since July and as a result it is now possible, for the first time, to begin to think — albeit tentatively — in terms of the final framework agreement which might form the basis of the accession Treaty. With maximum political goodwill and co-operation from all our partners, we can bring the final decisive stage of the negotiations, on which we have now entered, to an early and successful conclusion.
A central area of Government concern, and of our foreign policy in the period under review, was the Community's relations with the developing world. There was considerable development of the Community's relations with Central America during 1984. In January a delegation of the European Parliament visited a number of Central American countries while in June President Monge of Costa Rica was in a number of European capitals. During his European visit President Monge met the Taoiseach in London. The Taoiseach expressed his concern about the situation in Central America and informed President Monge that Ireland wished to assist both in a national capacity and as the forthcoming President of the Ten. Since then, of course, these contacts have come to fruition in the form of the historic ministerial meeting which took place in San Jose, Costa Rica, in late September. The San Jose meeting principally involved the Foreign Ministers of the Community and six Central American states, namely Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama but Spain and Portugal, on the European side, and the Contador countries, Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela also participated. I had the honour of chairing the meeting on the Community side. The accession, I am happy to report, is generally considered to have been a considerable success. Among other things, on the economic side, the Ministers agreed to enter into exploratory talks with a view to drawing up a co-operation agreement between the two regions. It is my hope that increased co-operation between our two regions will help to foster stability and peace in Central America in the years to come.
Important developments also took place in our relations with the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific — or ACP — countries with whom we are contractually linked under the Lomé Convention. Negotiations for a third Lomé Convention from 1985 onwards got under way in earnest. Three major ministerial negotiating conferences took place so that, by the end of June, the text of the new convention was clearly beginning to take shape. Further progress had been made since then during the Irish Presidency and, I am optimistic that at a meeting with my ACP co-president, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Papua New Guinea in Brussels tomorrow the negotiations will be concluded. This will open the way for the signature of the new convention in Lomé in early December and will preserve a tradition inaugurated in 1975 by the present Taoiseach, of signature of the Lomé Convention by Irish Presidents of the Council.
The new convention will consolidate what has been achieved in its two predecessors but it will also contain some innovations. Most notably it will place a new emphasis on the ACP area achieving self reliance through integrated rural and agricultural development. The new convention will also contain a new chapter on the long term fight against drought and desertification which is presently ravaging many parts of Africa. It is my fervent hope that — if we continue these kinds of strategies in our aid programme — terrible tragedies such as that which we are witnessing in Ethiopia today will become a thing of the past.
I would like to say a special word about the situation in Ethiopia. As you are aware, the Irish Presidency was instrumental in getting the Community to reassess its position on aid to that country. As far back as September the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, brought this tragic situation to the attention of the other member states. The Taoiseach, too urged his fellow Heads of State and Government to agree to more Community aid to Ethiopia.
No one, of course, is satisfied with the current situation. Deputy O'Keeffe is in Ethiopia at the moment and will be making a report on his findings to the Council in Brussels next week. The Irish people have responded magnificently to the appeals for relief. We did not seek to score any points in our role as Presidency in securing more Community aid for Ethiopia. It was simply our duty to do so.
The dramatic famine in Ethiopia has been the subject of recent discussions in the Council. In 1984 so far the Community has provided aid totalling 43.8 million ECUs. On 6 November the Council adopted a resolution which recognised that this aid was still inadequate in view of the serious deterioration of the situation in Ethiopia. However, the Council also noted with satisfaction that a new Community emergency plan had already been put into action for Ethiopia and certain other African countries suffering from famine. This new emergency aid comprises: immediate aid measures amounting to 32 million ECUs, under which are envisaged the purchase locally of some food products and the transport internally by road and rail of up to 100,000 tonnes of cereals, the internal airlift of 4,000 tonnes of cereals, and medical, nutritional and other programmes; short term food aid actions equivalent to 100,000 tonnes of cereals with an estimated value of 25 million ECUs.
In addition to this emergency aid, the Community has resolved to pursue actively long term efforts aimed at ensuring food security in Africa.
Turning again to internal Community affairs, the European Parliament adopted on 14 September 1983 a resolution on the substance of a preliminary draft Treaty establishing European union. This was a further step in a process which began in July 1981 when the Parliament resolved to take the initiative in giving a new impetus to the creation of European union. This process culminated on 14 February 1984 when the European Parliament adopted the draft treaty establishing European union, together with a resolution entrusting its President to submit it to the Parliaments and Governments of the member states.
The draft Treaty is a document which in its intent and inspiration merits our full attention. While inevitably there will be hesitations on the part of Governments with regard to certain aspects of the draft Treaty, it serves as a useful model for the Community's long term goal of European union and places on Governments the onus of seeking a real consensus for action to achieve that common goal.
The adoption of the draft Treaty was the crowning achievement of the first directly elected European Parliament which completed its term of office in May. That Parliament fully justified the faith invested in it as the democratically elected voice of the people of Europe. The second direct elections to the European Parliament were held in June. While the fall in the percentage of the European electorate who exercised their vote from 62.5 per cent in 1979 to 57 per cent in the recent elections provides cause for some concern and points perhaps to the need for further efforts to publicise the activities and achievements of the Parliament, it must be acknowledged that the first directly elected Parliament greatly enhanced the standing of the Parliament as a leading institution of the Community.
The decisions reached at the European Council at Fontainebleau in June represented a decisive breakthrough and enabled us to begin to give concrete substance to the launching of the Community to which the Heads of State and Government had committed themselves with the signature of the Solemn Declaration on European Union on 19 June 1983. The success of the Council enabled its members to address their attention once more to the further strengthening and development of the Community and the wellbeing of its citizens. The Council took the view that the process of European integration should be pursued at two levels, that of Community policies and institutions and that of measures designed to enhance the image and awareness of the Community among its citizens. It decided to establish an ad hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs representative of the Heads of State or Government, the function of which is to make suggestions for the improvement of the work of the Community in all areas. The Irish Presidency was asked to take the necessary steps to implement that decision and the Committee is now meeting under the chairmanship of Senator Dooge and is expected to submit an interim report to the European Council in Dublin on 3 and 4 December. The Council also identified a series of practical measures designed to make the Community more relevant, responsive and meaningful to its citizens than heretofore and decided that a second ad hoc Committee should be set up for this purpose. This Committee is now under way and I and my colleagues on the Council look forward with anticipation to its recommendations in due course.
However, the credibility of all our activities, external and internal, depends on our overcoming our short term budgetary difficulties, that is until increased own resources come on stream. Senators will be aware that the budgetary shortfall in 1984 constituted a major crisis for the Community, with the prospect indeed of all payments ceasing by October of this year. The agreement finally reached, which was based on refundable advances from member states, was a major success for our Presidency and has provided the vital breathing space necessary for the Community to seek a fundamental resolution of its budgetary problems.
The 1985 preliminary draft budget was submitted by the Commission on 18 June 1984. In this, the Commission envisaged there would be an increase in the Community's own resources during the period of the budget in order to provide the additional funds needed for its complete financing. The budgetary process for 1985 has not yet been completed and the Council and the Parliament are engaged in intensive discussions on the matter.
One of the Community's priorities during the period under review was the completion and consolidation of the internal market and this has continued to develop under our Presidency. This is one of the basic objectives of the Community, the creation of a genuinely common market, an objective to which this country is committed. Progress has been made on the simplification of frontier formalities and in October the Council agreed on the introduction of a single administrative document for use in all trade within the Community.
In the broad area of international economic relations the Community during this period was compelled to express its concern frequently at protectionist moves by some of its trading partners. In particular, it was necessary to refute the allegation that problems in certain sectors of the US economy could be attributed to competition from Europe. The Community also remained concerned at the trade imbalance with Japan and continued to press for market-opening measures in the Japanese economy to help redress the balance.
This period coincided with the first year of full implementation of the agreement between the Community and EFTA which created the world's largest free trade area. Trade has continued to improve and progress is continuing under the Irish Presidency on implementation of the programme set out in the Joint Declaration of April last.
It is not surprising that the current slackness of the world energy market and the consequent abundance of supplies, especially of oil, should reduce the public attention given to the Community's energy policy. Nevertheless, the period under review saw consideration of, and decision upon, a number of important issues. The Council of Energy Ministers debated the Commission's analysis of member states' policies and their relationship to the Community's overall energy objectives and asked for further in-depth study and discussion at official level. The Council was able to agree on the allocation of substantial funds to the energy demonstration programme, which promotes experimentation with new ways of producing and saving energy. It also stressed once again that solid fuel, including peat, was an essential aspect of the Community's energy strategy and continued discussion of Commission proposals for financial aid to this sector. It is fair to say that the Community remains conscious of the need not to be lulled into a false sense of security and is keeping the long-term goals of its energy policy in sight. Nevertheless the budgetary difficulties of the Community as a whole have undoubtedly affected its ability to promote change — in this field as in others — as actively as we would like.
A major review of the European Regional Development Fund was completed when a new regulation was adopted in June. It will enter into force on 1 January 1985. Under the new regulations the present system of fixed national quotas is being replaced by indicative ranges which involve minimum and maximum percentages of the fund being allocated to each member state. Ireland will be eligible for a share of the total fund of between 5.64 per cent, which is guaranteed, and 6.83 per cent. The existing non-quota section is being abolished. Financing on the basis of programme is being introduced on an experimental basis and will operate in tandem with the present system of individual projects. While the new regulation should allow greater flexibility in the implementation of Community regional policy, the fund's ability to bring about its objective of achieving greater convergence among member states remains limited by the low level of resources allocated.
In June this year the Council adopted conclusions on a medium term social action programme. In addition, resolutions were adopted on the contribution of local employment initiatives and action to combat unemployment among women, as were conclusions concerning technological developments and social change.
Employment with particular reference to the long term unemployed is a Presidency priority and the Council is at present examining a Commission communication and draft resolution on long term unemployment which it hopes to adopt by the end of the year. Progress has also been made in such areas as combating poverty, the promotion of positive action for women and the exchange of young workers.
In the sphere of transport policy, in which progress over the years has been disappointingly slow, it looked at first as if real progress had been recorded at the Council held in May. There was agreement in principle on a whole package of road transport measures, including a first directive harmonising vehicle weights and dimensions, a graduated increase in the Community quota of road haulage permits — a move towards freer competition between hauliers — and on the allocation of funds to transport infrastructure programmes for 1983 and 1984. The Council also set up two high level groups to consider medium and long term policy in the aviation and inland transport sectors; they are to report to the next month's Transport Council.
However, the agreement reached in May has, in the interim, been called into question. Final decisions could not be reached on key details and so the package — which had been agreed as a totality — was in serious danger of becoming unstuck. As Presidency we have made considerable efforts to prevent this. I am glad to say that at the additional Transport Council held on 8 November we were able to secure political agreement to a compromise solution; it should be possible, I feel, for the measures agreed in May to be formally adopted by the end of this year.
This period saw one of the most important developments in the field of Community information technology policy, the adoption at the Council of 28 February of the Strategy Programme for Research and Development Technologies (ESPRIT). This should make a major contribution towards placing European information technology in a position of technical equality with competitors such as the US and Japan. Ireland stands to benefit considerably from the pilot phase and the five year programme phase of ESPRIT.
I would like now to review briefly the major developments in 1984 in the area of European Political Co-operation. The Ten have welcomed the movement towards democracy in South America, in particular in Argentina. On the other hand, the situation in Chile — where the authorities have taken no meaningful steps to restore democracy and where violent incidents continue — remains a cause of deep concern for the Ten. The Ten have urged that the dialogue between the Chilean authorities and the democratic opposition should be resumed with a view to restoring democratic conditions there. However, the situation in that country continues to deteriorate and recently the authorities proclaimed a state of siege which imposes yet another hardship on the Chilean people. That development was recently deplored by the Foreign Ministers of the Ten in a joint statement on 12 November.
The Ten have continued to express their support for the efforts of the Contadora Group to find a peaceful solution to the problems of Central America. A significant development in recent months was the Conference held in San Jose, Costa Rica, at the end of September between the Foreign Ministers of the Community and the Commission, Portugal and Spain, Central America and the Contadora Group. The Ten were pleased at the outcome of the conference. It marked the beginning of a new political dialogue between Europe and Central America, which will be paralleled by an intensification of economic co-operation. In the joint communique of the conference the participants approved their support for the Contadora process as the best opportunity to achieve a peaceful solution to the crisis in Central America.
Senators will be aware that tension in and around Nicaragua has been increasing in recent weeks. I and my nine colleagues of the member states of the Community during our political co-operation meeting in Brussels yesterday expressed our deep concern at this development and expressed the hope that the relevant parties will exercise the utmost restraint and that the Central American countries will soon reach full agreement on a final text of the Contadora Act.
The Ten have followed closely political developments in southern Africa during this period. The Foreign Ministers of the Ten on 27 February noted with satisfaction the Lusaka Agreement of 16 February between South Africa and Angola which provided for a disengagement of South African troops from southern Angola. They also noted the understanding between South Africa and Mozambique which led to the signing of the Nkomati Accord on 16 March. The Ten have expressed the hope that these agreements would bring about a climate of mutual confidence which would facilitate the implementation of UN Council Resolution 435 on the independence of Namibia.
The Ten have continued to review development in South Africa, particularly the adoption and implementation of the new constitution. On 11 September in Dublin the Foreign Ministers of the Ten issued a declaration expressing their concern at arrest and detention and sought the immediate release of those detained without charge. The Ten considered that the violence and rioting in the black townships reflected, inter alia, the frustration of black South Africans at their deliberate exclusion from South Africa's political life and at the denial to them of adequate political means through which to express their grievances.
In Asia the Ten remain deeply concerned about the continuing occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. They called on the Soviet Union in their declaration of 27 March to respect the interest of all states and to renounce their use and threat of force. Specific reference was made to Afghanistan in this context.
The major developments in the Middle East during 1984 took place in the Lebanon and in the Iran-Iraq conflicts. Movement towards a solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict was minimal because of the pending Israeli general elections held in July and the run-up to the Presidential elections in the US. In Lebanon, a national unity government was formed and the Israeli-Lebanon Agreement of 17 May 1983 was abrogated by Lebanon. In the Iran-Iraq war a UN team confirmed that chemical weapons had been used in Iran and there were extensive attacks on shipping in the Gulf. On 1 June the Security Council called on all states to respect freedom of navigation in the Gulf. An agreement was reached between Iran and Iraq on 12 June not to attack purely civilian targets and Irish Army officers serving with the UN have been attached to the teams monitoring this agreement.
The Ten continued during the period in question to pay close attention to developments in the Middle East and to do whatever possible to help in finding solutions to conflicts in the area. This has been reflected in a statement issued by the Foreign Minister on 2 February. The Ten's policies and actions on Lebanon continued to be directed towards reestablishment of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that long-suffering country. Ireland maintained its practical contribution to the achievement of this in the form of participation in UNIFIL.
In regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, our belief that a solution must encompass the right of all states in the area, including Israel, to a secure and peaceful existence and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination was reaffirmed.
The Iran-Iraq conflict continued to be a cause for concern both in the region itself and because of its possible wider implications. The confirmation by a UN team that chemical weapons had been used in the war was a particular cause for distress. We made clear our unqualified condemnation of any use of such weapons. The Ten continued to support efforts by intermediaries to bring about a ceasefire and a negotiated solution of differences between Iran and Iraq.
East-West relations were strained throughout 1983 and have continued to be tense in 1984. In these circumstances, the Ten have made clear their determination to contribute to the improvement of relations between East and West. They stated this early in the year and I re-emphasised it in speaking on their behalf to the UN General Assembly in September. The Ten hope that the recent high level contacts between the United States and the Soviet Union, which are a positive development, will contribute to bringing about a sustained process of constructive dialogue and a consequent improvement in East-West relations.
In my address on behalf of the Ten to the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September I stated in relation to disarmament and arms control issues:
The Ten profoundly regret the suspension of the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on intercontinental strategic nuclear weapons and intermediate nuclear forces. We consider that these vitally important negotiations should resume and be pursued actively with a view to reducing nuclear weapons to the lowest possible level.
In the same address I spoke also of the danger of an arms race in outer space and expressed the Ten's regret that bilateral talks between the two leading space powers have not yet taken place. As regards the negotiations in Geneva of a convention to prohibit chemical weapons, I welcomed on behalf of the Ten the positive developments which have taken place this year. I expressed the hope of the Ten that, despite the differences which remain to be resolved, it will be possible to move towards the conclusion at an early date of a convention to eliminate chemical weapons.
The Ten continue to follow with close interest the evolution of the situation in Poland. They welcomed the amnesty announced in July for the great majority of those who had received prison sentences for their political activities and those detained awaiting trial. They recalled that it has consistently been their wish to return to a more normal relationship with Poland as actual developments in that country permit.
The Conference on Confidence — and Security — Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe, known as the CDE, opened in Stockholm in January and is now in its fourth session. The objective of the first stage of the CDE is to negotiate confidence — and security — building measures designed to reduce the risk of military confrontation in Europe. It is envisaged that a further stage of the CDE would negotiate actual measures of disarmament. The conference has been affected by the poor climate of East-West relations in recent times and little significant progress has been made in the work. The Ten hope that agreement on a working structure for the conference will soon be secured since such an agreement could help to get effective negotiations underway.
As a participating State of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), Ireland has taken part in each of these meetings. Moreover, during the period of the Irish Presidency Ireland has been responsible for chairing co-ordination of the delegations of the Ten and acting as their spokesman where required.
Those, then, are the major developments in the Communities to date in 1984. The Irish Presidency still has, of course, a tremendous amount of work before it. I am confident, however, that with the full co-operation of our partners we can make further and decisive progress over the remaining weeks and, as a result, hand over on 1 January the chairmanship of a community that has been significantly strengthened during our six months of special responsibility.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive review of the year's activity in the EC. However, it must be said that this year has not been a particularly good one for the EC. At the time of the European elections in particular it was shown by the number of people who came out to vote that people had lost interest in what happens in the EC because of the fact that the Communities have not been able to tackle the problems which beset the people of all the countries that comprise the EC at present.
The main problem, of course, has been the failure to tackle the unemployment issue. There does not seem to be any great emphasis in the Minister's speech on practical steps which are being taken or which will be taken to help resolve this ongoing problem. There is mention in his speech that before the end of the year there will be a report which will possibly help the long-term unemployed. There is one thing we can be assured of from the EC and that is that we will get plenty of paper and reports, but unfortunately there is no diminution in the number of people out of work. The low rate of voting in the EC elections has shown that people have begun to doubt the value of this grouping.
I think it right that the problems in Ethiopia should be mentioned in the Minister's speech. We should dwell a little on how best we might help that particular country and the other countries surrounding the Sahara, the Sahel countries where desertification is growing at a pace which is phenomenal. The thousands of hectares that have been taken over by the Sahara in the past number of months is frightening. The problem in Ethiopia is not a short-term problem and is not one that can be really helped by the type of fire brigade action that is being given to it at present.
We agree that there have been fantastic efforts made throughout the Community on a voluntary basis and indeed by Governments to send out aid to that country but if we are to solve the problems of that area it is not fire brigade measures we need but an ongoing system of aid which will help to re-establish the agricultural basis which was there. We will have to tackle the problem of desertification. If we do not tackle that problem we are going to have an ongoing problem of hunger in the world. Everybody who has seen the pictures on RTE and the other channels has been appalled at the sight of babies and adults dying there. We could hear the sounds of death but if we could for ten seconds smell the death and realise the poverty of that area we would really get down to trying to solve the problems of that area.
For too many years we have seen aid given as a form of fire brigade measure but in Europe or in the developed world we have not looked at the real problems and we have not tried to really tackle them. Many countries have given aid but basically the aid they have given has been to the benefit of the donor countries and not the recipient country. There are too many developed countries who give a certain amount of development aid to the Third World but who insist that imports to these countries have to be purchased in the donor country. Thus the profits on the manufacture of materials stay in the donor country and too little goes to the country which really needs the aid.
The Community needs to establish projects such as Gorta are establishing in these countries. We must establish projects which will give long-term hope and not just depend on fire brigade measures.
I agree with the majority of people in Ireland who cannot understand why the mountains of food we have building up on a daily basis in the EC cannot be released. I have heard an official statement that they cannot be released because if they are released the Community would lose the value that can be got when these products are put on sale in the international market at cut price rates. I think in Ireland and in the other EC countries there would not be a dissenting voice if the food mountains were transferred from the ships and the warehouses throughout the Community. Who is benefiting at present?
Debate adjourned.