The Minister will make a contribution at 7.30 p.m. and the proposer of the motion will conclude when the Minister is finished. The debate on the motion will finish at 8 o'clock.
Democracy in Eastern Europe: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann warmly welcomes the moves towards greater democracy in eastern Europe and urges the Government to use its influence both unilaterally and within the European Community to encourage this process.
—(Senator McDonald.)
The Minister will come in at 7.30 p.m. The proposer comes in on the conclusion of the Minister's statement. Is that agreed?
I have no objection to that, but I feel that there may be people anxious to speak at that stage who might get two or three minutes each to make a point — just a little bit of flexibility at that stage. We should look at it that way. I have no objection otherwise.
On a general principle, it is agreed that the Minister comes in at 7.30 p.m. and then the proposer comes in after that. If it goes two or three minutes after that we are not——
I would support that at 7.30 p.m. the Cathaoirleach will allow, if there are a number of speakers offering, they will definitely get two or three minutes to make a point; then the Minister will come in and then the proposer.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I commend the motion and in broad terms I support it, except that I have a problem with the words "greater democracy" because to be quite honest, I do not believe that there was any such thing as any form or semblance of democracy within the eastern European bloc. Having said that, I commend the Motion and I would urge the Government to continue, as they have been doing, to use their influence, both unilaterally and within the European Community, to encourage the process of democratisation of the European bloc countries. It is essential that they should do this in an attempt to completely rid the eastern Europe of the curse of communism, Marxism and socialism. President Gorbachev should be commended because through his efforts of perestroika, restructuring in glasnost openness, he forced with outstanding strength and courage the hardline Eastern European communistic dominoes into the oblivion of political obituary. We have witnessed the demise of each regime over the last few weeks, in particular, the off-loading of the political mavericks and animals synonomous with Marxist oppression the mass murderers who exploited the people in Eastern Germany, such as Honecker, like Zhivkov in Bulgaria, and the inevitable overthrow of the leaders in Czechoslovakia. This has been an achievement for which President Gorbachev must take credit because he has realised that international communism, Marxism and socialism have failed broadly.
But, we must ask ourselves the question, is President Gorbachev as leader of the eastern bloc states going to divest himself totally of the regime of communism and socialism. We have to ponder and wonder about that, because, only last week, in typical communistic rhetoric, he told a Soviet youth gathering, and I quote: "the fact that Marxism had in the past been wrongly applied was no grounds for giving it up".
(Interruptions.)
If the little mini-Marxists — and there are a few of them over there I notice — realised what is happening in eastern Europe — but then I suppose ignorance is bliss and one can still live in a dream world — they would see that international communism and socialism and Marxism have failed totally. The utopian image that was built up about this some 45 years ago, right throughout the eastern block countries and maintained as a result of the Warsaw Pact, has resulted in nothing more than 45 years of total misrule, of mis-government, the perpetration of deceit and dishonesty, a rule by police states in all the eastern European bloc countries where people were ruthlessly and murderously exploited, where political dissenters and ethnic minorities were cruelly murdered. The little mini-Marxists in this country should look to see what their colleagues have achieved over the last 45 years.
What about Mickey Mouse capitalism.
The portrayal of misinformation and the lack of information have been such as to ensure that the peoples of the eastern bloc did not realise what it was like to live in the real world of real society. There was oppression by silence, failure to inform the peoples of the eastern block of western developments, failure to develop new technologies. People lived with low wages. The type of money they had was little more than "yokey dokey" money which, I have no doubt, some of our friends over there would find it very hard to use. It would deeply disrupt their social lives if they had to use the sort of money that the people they would support in Eastern Europe have had to use on a daily basis for the last 45 years.
Keep it up.
The myth of full employment that our pseudo-socialists pretend obtains within the eastern bloc countries is something that amazes me. Employment there is little more than a deceit and a misconception. The stories of corruption that have emanated from the eastern bloc countries are based on absolute fact.
The people who led these Marxist regimes got themselves fine residences, fine holiday homes. The abuse and misuse of power was part and parcel of how these regimes operated. Certainly, I would advise any mini-Marxist in this country that in the past 45 years communism and Marxism have produced nothing but poverty, oppression, silence, hunger and a lack of basic food and clothes. All one has to do is go to any of the eastern bloc countries and see the tiny cars and the appalling housing conditions. Why is it that the hard currency shops which operate in many of the eastern bloc countries are gazed on in abject amazement by the poor people who have been exploited? For the poor people who are the victims of communism, Marxism and socialism, that is the only opportunity they have of seeing the type of goods which people living in true democracies use in a normal fashion in their normal everyday lives. The only purchasers in these shops are diplomats and foreigners who can afford to purchase the goods.
The question we must pose ourselves and which is most important for the future is, how far we can go and how far we must go to help to support those countries within the eastern bloc who wish for real, true and genuine change? Even in those countries the people are not sure how far they can go or will go. It is obvious that the Hungarians, who have been trying to change their ideological philosophy of economics over the past number of years have not really advanced that far and neither have the East Germans. It is a matter of how genuine this change is as to how far western Europe can go to support that change. This poses enormous questions.
Countries in western Europe should not subsidise pseudo-reformed Governments operating on minuscule delusions of Marxist policies. The reforms, restructuring or perestroika should be true and genuine, albeit slow. They will have to radically change towards more democratisation and the total elimination of communist, socialist and Marxist philosophies. The western countries have their own rights and needs in relation to developing their own structures and their own demands. Certain preconditions should be fulfilled. There should be free and secret elections; the end of power monopoly of the communists; the establishment of free trade unions; a free press; the introduction of a market economy. All of those five conditions should be fulfilled. We should not have to subsidise a socialist economy. We, in western Europe must behave responsibly on behalf of the people of the democratic world whom we represent.
Only last week I had an opportunity privately to go to Bulgaria and what I saw saddened me. Admittedly, I was there at the time when the Bulgarian people were looking for great change and the opportunities they felt might result from that change. They had been led for over 30 years by the Secretary of the Communist Party, Mr. Zhivkov. What I saw made me feel sad: it was certainly a microcosm of what was happening throughout the eastern bloc countries. There was the classic situation of poor housing, abject poverty, the deceit which has been used to mislead the people, the charade of full employment when around the main squares of Sofia hundreds of peole were walking around aimlessly. They were not going into the shops because there was nothing to get in the shops. I lost my luggage on the way out and it took three Bulgarians two hours to get a shirt for me. The amazing thing is when you go into any of the shops in the main streets of Sofia some 50 or 60 people stand behind you and see what you are doing. I asked one Bulgarian what all these people were doing walking around, why were they watching someone who was buying goods and he said they did not have anything else to do. I had been told by everyone else I had met that there was full employment. I asked him, "How can I reconcile this viewpoint with what I have been told authoritatively?" He said, "No one works here because there is nothing to work at." The average monthly wage is 240 leva. According to their banks one leva is equivalent to one US dollar but all one has to do is walk outside the door of the hotel and you will get ten leva for one US dollar. Those people earn the equivalent of US $24 per month or US $6 per week. All one could see were people hoping for change.
However, one would have to question whether they are genuine. I wish to quote from a recent edition of the Sofia News, dated November 16-22, 1989 and the speech of Peter Mladenov who has succeeded Zhivkov. He said:
Sending Mr. Zhivkov to a well deserved rest, we are thanking him cordially for all that and we wish him many long years of health, buoyancy and creative activity.
The fact of life is that most people in Sofia would tell you that Mr. Zhivkov is gone missing. They would also tell you that his son who they allege spent US $3.5 million playing blackjack in Monaco five weeks ago, is also missing. They would also tell you that the Deputy Prime Minister who lost his job on Friday is also missing. Is this the sort of society the mini-Marxists over there would like to have here? Ignorance is bliss. We will have to question the genuineness of the reformation because in his closing words Mr. Mladenov said:
The Bulgarian Communist Party being bone of the bone and flesh of the flesh of the Bulgarian people, being a political force whose roots go deep into the history of this country, takes an enormous responsibility for the success of restructuring. This is a responsibility to the people of present-day Bulgaria, a responsibility to those who devoted their life and labours to the struggle for the triumph and establishment of socialism on Bulgarian soil, a responsibility to the succeeding generations.
We are assuming that responsibility.
Acting Chairman
Will the Senator please conclude. I call Senator O'Toole.
It is a long time since I have heard such patronising drivel. It is positively nauseating to have to listen to it. A few points should be put on the record, that for every mass murderer you can identify on one side of the eastern bloc you can certainly find an equal, if not a ten-fold number outside the communist states.
I am sorry that Senator McCarthy is leaving us at this time. His thesis on the failure of communism, Marxism and socialism which he has delivered with such glee to us is interesting. Of course, he has pointed out problems which have existed but where do they not exist? This morning, less than ten miles from here, in a travellers' camp site, 60 or 70 years since Independence, I saw 70 families who have got one tap between them, no access to education and no access to health. It is easy to walk into any country in the world and point out flaws.
Before I go any further, I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not stand here to make the case for things that are wrong in another jurisdiction, be it communism, Marxism or socialism. It amuses me that the previous speaker does not find it philosophically in his capacity to distinguish between socialism, Marxism and communism. I do not intend to use my time to give him a lecture on political philosophies but it seems to me that all those who have prayed for all those years to save Russia must have had their prayers answered. It appears that crusade has come to an end.
I would tell Senator McCarthy just one little story of another visitor to Hungary in recent times. It is an absolutely true story of an American visitor — whose father-in-law I recently met — who was in Hungary and developed a very serious abscess in his gums. He was brought to the local health centre which, in his words, was a little grotty but had very good facilities. He was dealt with with great efficiency; the abscess was drained, he was given medication and he was treated as he would wish to be treated. He was charged the equivalent of $1 for that. His point was that if he had any future problems with his teeth it would be safer and cheaper for him to get a plane from the United States to Hungary to have it treated.
I take the view that there is no political philosophy which is the correct one. The whole sense of political life is that it must change constantly, it must be constantly examined, modified and applied in reflection of the will of the people and the changing times. It is also important to state, in response to what Senator McCarthy has said, that the motivating force of capitalism — which cause he so ably puts forward — is the power of selfishness, greed and profit. That is what makes capitalism work and that should be kept in mind.
I welcome the motion put down by Fine Gael which deserves a positive response. All politicians should welcome change wherever it may come from. I always worry about those who sit here and condemn somewhere else without ever seeing the problems which are there beside them as they are so myopic in their approach.
We have seen a revolution in the last number of months in the eastern bloc countries. Make no mistake; perestroika, glasnost, the readiness to change and the massive changes we have seen in those countries represent the second revolution in this century for those countries, particularly for Russia. We should also look at the source of the first revolution. While I do not intend to make a history lesson out of it, it is very clear that communism was born as a result of the aggrandisement aspirations of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, of the threat of fascism from Germany; of the suppression by the Tsars in Russia and it grew out of a dream of revolution which led to the October Revolution in 1917. Let us leave it there and look very briefly at what happened in between.
Rather than have anybody come back and disagree with what I have said, let me say straight away that I have been a consistent critic of those administrations in the east who have felt it necessary to imprison their people, to suppress civil and political rights in their country and to disallow the growth of free trade unions, for instance. I was one of the first supporters in this country of the need for free trade unions in Poland and was a member of the Irish Solidarity Support Group. I have always argued for free movement and free travel, as I have supported the charter of civil rights of the UN. I speak with a very clean position on that. I have been a constant critic of many aspects of the eastern bloc countries or what is known as the Second World.
It was the difficult birth of that first revolution which led to the problems perhaps, and to the advances of the past 50, 60 or 70 years in those countries. Whatever Senator McCarthy might say, the levels of poverty and unemployment, the access to health services, to education and housing is something that is available in those countries and which we would aspire to have here. Let us also recognise that. Let us remember all our young students who are worried about third level places and points. That does not exist in the Second World. They have access to education at all levels and they have access to housing. It is interesting to hear the discussions of those in East Berlin since the border was opened which prove that people want to live at home. It is interesting to hear them say they have a job, a good house and an enjoyable life, that all they want to do is to travel and that they have no intention of staying away from East Germany. Choice has been brought into it and that has pointed out the ludicrous nature of the Berlin Wall. We, as a people, must know more than anybody that you cannot suppress people, you cannot suppress civil or political rights, they will win eventually. That kind of suppression will not succeed.
The lack of poverty, the control of employment, the access to health services, to education and to housing should serve as a headline to governments throughout the world including Senator McCarthy's own party in Government. I hope that with the spread of egalitarianism throughout Europe our people will get an improvement in those areas and that the demolition of borders and the demolition of the walls will lead to an egalitarianism that will find expression in increased employment, improved health service and housing and access to education. That is what we should learn from it.
I question the patronising demands of Senator McCarthy to have conditions before we help and support changes in eastern Europe. This House has a proud record of looking at problems anywhere in the world and being prepared to intervene, to discuss, to help, to support, to criticise whatever is needed; and we will continue to do that without any of the pre-conditions which he would look at.
We also need to recognise the difference between our world, the world of the consuming capitalism and the world of the Second World, where they have managed to instil in their young people and in their ordinary working people a love of arts, culture, theatre, ballet, the fine arts, which we have failed miserably to do here. It is significant that Senator McCarthy can produce here the Sofia News from Bulgaria, which is written in English. I wonder if we were to produce a magazine or newspaper in this country, written in the language of a country 1,000 or 500 miles away, whether people would be able to read it. That is a fair reflection on their educational system. It is something to which we should aspire.
We might also look at the contribution to industrial and technological development which has come from eastern Europe. I think we would say: "Let us share information on these things — share and learn from each other". Let us start a new process, a new initiative in egalitarianism. Let us move forward, learning from each other. Let us move forward attempting to create a better life, a better standard of living, a better quality of life, better access to the things that determine the quality of life. This should be available to the people of the West as well.
To sum up, the point that is most important in the Fine Gael motion, in welcoming the moves towards greater democracy, is that we are all of one voice on the issue. Nobody in this House would disagree with that motion or disapprove of it. Of course, we welcome it. We can start at that point putting whatever codicials we want on to it, but we are committed to that particular point. So what do we now do? Do we now stand back, like Senator McCarthy, and look at a world of people who have come from rural peasant backgrounds, which would include most of eastern Europe, and criticise their efforts; or do we say: "These people have something to offer; we have something to give; let us learn from each other and move forward together to create a Europe where the quality of life is improved for all"? This has to be the way forward. It is not a case of Senator McCarthy's name-calling. This adds nothing to the debate. It reflects a dearth of political movement. It reflects a paucity of ideas. It reflects a resistance to change and it indicates to me that the biggest threat created by the demolition of the Iron Curtain-Berlin Wall has been that we will no longer be able to differentiate between where communism was and where capitalism is.
We will no longer be able to point the finger and say: "There they are over there", because the visitors to Europe will find themselves unknowingly in eastern Europe and they will see that they are only ordinary people trying to scrape a living like the rest of us. Let us get together on this; let us look forward and resist the capitalising drivel of the previous speaker. Let us look at this in a broad, open way and learn from each other. Let us learn from the advances in eastern Europe in the area of housing, social welfare, education and so on, and let us give to them the best of our world and together let us move forward. What we have seen marks the end of statism and marks the beginning of a participatory democracy which we would hope to see worldwide.
I am pleased to support this motion. I would like to say that I had the experience of being in Eastern Europe — in fact, in East Berlin — when Gary Powers was shot down over Russia. That experience brought home to me the depth of feeling, of fear, in the people there. That, of course, was before the time of the terrible wall in Berlin. I have been back there many times since and it certainly was not a pleasant sight.
What we are witnessing in Eastern Europe today is, I believe, the end of Stalinism and not necessarily the end of communism. Nevertheless, it is a very welcome change and a change which we in the West must encourage and help in every possible way. Gorbachev is already one of the most remarkable leaders of his time. If he succeeds — and there is no guarantee yet that he will — he will be ranked among the great leaders of all time. If he fails — and there are millions out there who would want him to fail — we will see a return to the Brezhnev doctrine at best and a military dictatorship in the Soviet Union at worst. That would end the process of democratisation in Eastern Europe, which could not only be a tragedy but which could also be a danger to world peace.
Let us rejoice, but not gloat, at what is happening. The process is a huge climb down for communism or socialism, whatever they like to call it. To gloat in their misery could endanger the process and thereby endanger peace itself. Successful change will only be assured, I believe, if Gorbachev can put in the shops the goods which the people need, thus getting rid of the interminable queues and uncertainty about supplies of essentials, such as bread, butter and meat. Perestroika must succeed. So far, unfortunately, it is not succeeding. It is in this respect that we can help with western technology and generous western credit, both of which are so urgently needed for strengthening Soviet industry. At present we in the West are prohibited by a body in Paris called COCOM and by the United States export control restrictions from supplying on security grounds thousands of items to the COMECON bloc, which they so urgently need for their industry. Now is the time for the West in general, and for the United States in particular, to lift most of these restrictions, thus helping Gorbachev to get his economy moving and, in the process, making the world a better and safer place for all of us to live in, as well as providing a huge market for items such as information technology equipment, such as we can make here in Ireland but which presently we are not allowed to export for security reasons, because of COCOM restrictions and American extra-territorial legislation.
The suffering of these countries at the hands of Hitler and Stalin, as well as their puppets, is something we cannot fully comprehend. Now is the time for the West to extend the generous and magnanimous hand of help in a type of Marshall Plan to enable the eastern bloc countries to re-structure their economies. The easy credits and high technology products, plus western management expertise, can do for these able and well-educated but very suppressed people what western industry has been doing for the peoples of the West for a long time now. Changing their lifestyles will be as important as their new-found freedoms in bringing stability and democracy to this part of Europe which has suffered so much for so long at the hands of so many tyrants and totalitarian regimes.
Overseas, too, there will be some effects from the democratisation process. It will change their subversive activities overseas as well as discouraging the export of revolution by countries such as Cuba, Vietnam and China. Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan and Cuban withdrawal from Angola is already evidence of this change. Additionally, Mr. Gorbachev has made it known to his allies that they can no longer count on his help, civil or military, if they embark on under-mining Governments, of whatever colour or creed. Adventurism, it seems, is out.
We must ask ourselves what effect this will have upon the European Community and what effect will it have on the COMECON bloc? Already East Germany has very ready access to the markets of the Community — that is not fully realised. So in that respect I do not think, as far as East Germany at any rate is concerned, it is going to have very much effect. Inevitably, in order to help them, we will have to let others have easier access to our Community markets.
But there is another concern which many of us have and that is the whole question of resources. With the help that is required in the East, is there a danger that the resources being set aside to help the countries in the peripheral dis-advantaged areas of the West will be watered down? Will the Federal Republic of Germany now feel more inclined to help its neighbours to the east than its partners to the west? Personally, I have no great fears on that. The sums, in any case, are so derisively small that I do not think it is going to affect the position.
There is another issue of course, a burning issue, and that is how is it going to affect the whole balance of security and what will be the relevance of NATO and the Western European Union and the Warsaw Pact? Are these bodies going to be less relevant or irrelevant? Frankly, I believe they will be less relevant but not irrelevant. Being less relevant means reduction of spending on armaments.
Hear, hear.
Thank you. Military spending, of course, is at such levels that it astronomical. For example, the United States alone has a military budget for 1988 of $300 billion; the spending by the Soviet Union, although it is hard to come by accurate figures, is probably slightly greater.
The saving on a reduction of military spending could be used for very useful purposes. To clean up the environment, for instance, would be a good start. Improve our medical research. Help the Third World, especially Africa, also Cambodia and Bangladesh. All these places in need could get help from the moneys being reduced from the awful spending we had an arms for such a long period of time. We also need resources to replant the forests, to control erosion and desertification as well as flooding, which is regularly caused by deforestation, particularly in an area like Bangladesh. The deforestation of the hills in Nepal has caused huge problems, not only for Nepal but particularly for Bangladesh, where the silt washes down into the delta, blocking the water and flooding out 100 million people there. The task is so enormous that it requires the resources of the developed countries of the West and in this eastern Europe could play a good part with western Europe.
We particularly need research into alternative sources of energy. The present situation that we have today is entirely unsatisfactory. Most of our energy comes from fossil fuel, which is certainly damaging our environment. In Europe a significant quantity of it is coming from nuclear energy, which holds the danger of doing damage to our environment. We have to get something that is both safer and cleaner. That requires a considerable amount of research money. Perhaps nuclear fusion is the answer, but the moneys involved are huge. We can also examine the prospects of getting energy from wind, waves, solar energy, geo-thermal energy and renewable sources of energy, such as very high yielding, high dry matter crops, and using bio-ethanol and so on to drive our cars and propel our power stations. These are all measures that have to be undertaken as a matter or urgency in order to protect the environment, which we are literally destroying.
We in this generation, the generation before us, and the ones immediately after us, are enjoying a standard of living that we are not entitled to by using up the capital of carboniferous fuels that have built up over millions of years; we are using them up over a few hundred years and in the process destroying, or at least seriously damaging, the environment.
The other questions we have to ask ourselves are critical ones. Will there be two Germanys? Quite frankly, I do not care. I would prefer to see two. It seems from the polls carried out up to today in East Germany that the East Germans would prefer that there be two. It is not clear how many of the West Germans would want to join their neighbour to the east.
The other areas of contention will be how much latitude will the 15 different republics in the USSR be given? Already there are outbreaks of hostilities in nine of the 15 republics between different nationalities. This, in fact, could well prove to be Gorbachev's most difficult problem to reconcile — to reconcile the pent up hostilities which heretofore had been crushed by the power of the Soviet tanks. With the withdrawal of these tanks and the arrival of glasnost old hatreds have come to surface too frequently. That would be regrettable; we should not gloat about it; we should try to spread oil on troubled waters and in so, far as we can to help our neighbours to the east to find the accommodation we found among ourselves in Western Europe — despite two bloody wars we have managed somehow to find a formula to live together. Let us pass that formula on to our neighbours in the East. If Gorbachev succeeds today it will only be a matter of time until China, Cuba, Romania and Albania follow. They have little choice, despite their present crushing of any form of demands for democracy.
We are living in historic times. History is unfolding at a frighteningly rapid pace before our eyes and the speed of change is danger in itself. The outcome of these momentous events will affect not only the peace, freedom and prosperity of Europe, it will also influence events worldwide, now and in the future. Our efforts in the West must be guided to facilitate democratisation, followed by disarmament and the transfer of military spending to the provision of food for the hungry, health for the sick, freedom for the oppressed and safeguards for the environment now and in the future.
There is no guarantee of success, but let it not be said of us that we stood idly by when the poor, the needy, the sick and the oppressed and the environment itself depended upon us to make some sacrifices for the betterment of all mankind. I believe the opportunity is presenting itself before our very eyes to make an historic contribution to the world and we should not pass it up. As Shakespeare said, "He and he alone has failed, who has not tried". Let it not be said of us that we failed, that we let our brethren of the East down when they needed us. A new dawn is breaking. Let us wake up to avail of it and to make this little planet of ours a better and a safer and a healthier place for all of us now and for our children in the future.
Acting Chairman
Senator Norris is next on my list and Senator B. Ryan is offering. There are 11 minutes left. Will the Senators share the time?
I shall offer as well.
Acting Chairman
Will the three Senators share the 11 minutes? Will they agree to that?
Yes, I will. I would like to indicate I would like to take the extra minutes available——
Acting Chairman
That is up to your colleagues.
Right. I support the motion but I deplore the contribution of Senator McCarthy, which brough certain echoes of another Senator McCarthy from the United States of America. It would be very dangerous for us to engage in the kind of crude, ill-informed and ill-judged triumphalism that was evident in what Senator McCarthy had to say and I wish to dissociate myself totally from it. I would like instead to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Murphy when he indicated that what was being dismantled was State monopoly socialism and not the ideals of the October Revolution of 1917, which was indeed a glorious vision and one in which the founders of this State would have no difficulty whatever in joining.
I remember what the situation was like in the 1950s. This was brought back clearly to my mind when I was in Hungary in March of this year and I saw some of the early demonstrations on their national day in March. I saw for the first time names that I recalled from 1956, the name of Imre Nagy, the name of Pal Maleter, names that were almost forbidden in Hungary for many years. I remember with great emotion seeing those names because I remember when in 1956 the West, having encouraged and fomented revolt in the eastern bloc, did in fact stand idly by and left these people to become the victims of Soviet aggression.
The most remarkable thing that has happened in this very extraordinary series of events is that there has been no attempt whatever to intervene from the forces of the Soviet Union. We should pay a special tribute to the outstanding moral courage vision and leadership of the President of the Soviet Union, Comrade Gorbachev. Without him none of this could have happened. It is significant that this process is continuing, a process which is dangerous for him. In contact after contact with the states of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and, most lately of all, in Bucharest, the Soviet leader has indicated and I quote his words:
...the comparison of views and opinions, the exchange of work experience, help find ways to discover the humanitarian potential of socialism. The progress of each of the brotherly countries and the attractiveness of socialist ideas in the world depend on these.
It is to his vision that we must pay tribute. I welcome the fact that there are calls today for the re-emergence of figures like Dubcek in Czechoslovakia. I recall on my way back from that meeting in Budapest how our plane was diverted to Prague.
There was a group of parliamentaries who had not mentioned the fact that at that period, during that week, Dubcek had applied for a visa to visit the fraternal meeting of the Communist Party in Italy and had been denied. I went around that plane and, with the agreement of the Dutch, the Swedes and the Koreans, we sent from that plane to the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia a telegram of fraternal greetings and asking that the question of Mr. Dubcek should be looked at.
I would like to make two points and then hand over to my two colleagues. There is a problem in the West, I believe, that is, that there has been no parallel critique of the standing of capitalism in the West. We see intellectual honesty, rigorous inquiry — there has been no parallel.
I will finish on one point. We see countries surrounding and within the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union being encouraged to develop freedom of expression, free ideas and so on. What do we see within the American sphere of ambience? If you compare what is happening in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and so on with what is happening in Nicaragua, in El Salvador, in Kampuchea, there is a moral lesson for us. I greatly wish that I had time to develop these arguments, but, in deference to my friends I will give them the remaining time.
Acting Chairman
Thank you for your co-operation. Before I call on Senator Ryan, Senator Lydon is offering. The Minister has agreed to give an extra five minutes. Could we agree to divide the remaining 11 minutes between the three Senators?
There will be ample opportunities, I expect, to talk about these issues for one reason or another on many occasions over the next few years. I would like to say one thing, and one thing only. To suggest for one second that the reemergence of democracy in eastern Europe has anything to do with the success or failure of socialism is a total myth and fabrication. East Germany describes itself as the German Democratic Republic. Nobody has suggested that that means the demise of the unlamented regime in East Germany is in any way a threat to democracy. Just because people give themselves titles creates nothing. Let us remember this: the one unanimous theme we have heard from the citizens of East Germany, from the citizens of Poland, is that whatever they want they do not want westernstyle capitalism. Lech Walesa has said he does not want westernstyle capitalism. Everybody, New Forum in East Germany and indeed the Protestant Churches in East Germany, have made it clear that they have no great time for western capitalism.
Let nobody gloat. We are entering a new and challenging era. I, as one who has always stood on the left in politics, feel much happier with the future without the burden of sham socialism that has bestrode eastern Europe for 40 years to be used against my arguments. I will stand on the basis of socialism on its merits, on its values and on its genuine humanitarian impulses. I am very happy that humanitarian impulses are now widespread and that our society can argue and discuss on the basis of ideas. As Senator Norris said, the one thing western society sadly lacks at present is the capacity to address itself honestly — evidenced, for instance, by its inability to understand the massacre of six priests by armed forces trained by what is supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world.
Hear, hear.
I support the motion. Occasionally in a lifetime we see an amazing, historical event. What we are witnessing daily is a whole series of events which are little short of miraculous.
These happenings which we see nightly on our televisions are leading at least to two momentous, enormous events of greater significance on world politics than anything seen since the end of World War II. I refer to the two things which I believe will happen. One is the break-up of the Soviet power block and the other is the reunification of Germany. Those are two momentous events with which we are going to have to come to terms.
In reference to that, I would like to quote from a statement by Chancellor Helmut Kohl in the Bundestag on 16 November 1989, when he returned from Poland. He said:
Since the night of 9 November 1989 the state of the nation in a divided Germany has been radically changed. After more than 28 years the desire for freedom of our countrymen in East Berlin and in the German Democratic Republic has peacefully overcome the Wall and the fortifications that have kept us apart.
Last weekend, after being separated for nearly three decades, the Germans celebrated their Wiedersehen, their kinship and their unity for all the world to see.
I would like to pay tribute to three or four people who, I believe, brought this about. One is Mikhail Gorbachev, without whom this could not happen. But there were men before him who made us aware of what was happening in the Communist bloc, men such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I would also like to pay a special tribute to that great man, Lech Walesa. I will end with a quotation which is very apt. It is from the leader column in The Sunday Times of 12 November 1989:
There is a great opportunity here for the world to be a better place as it begins our third millennium: no more Cold War, no more nuclear balance of terror, no more fear of a third world war, the end of communist totalitarianism, the triumph of liberal democracy. But all major historical shifts are fraught with danger and, since we are talking about events on a 1789 scale, it is a sobering thought to remember, on this weekend of great hope and joy as the Berlin Wall is dismantled, that the French Revolution was followed by three years of increasing disintegration, two years of terror and 20 years of war. It is the supreme task of today's political leaders to manager the forthcoming revolutions rather better.
I hope that Ireland will be ready to play its part. I look forward to hearing the Minister's contribution.
I should like to say, first, that I heard on my office monitor one of the most absurd speeches I have heard in this House in the past five or six years from Senator McCarthy. It seems to me that to come out at this time with that sort of manic triumphalism is not only unhelpful but unrealistic. It is just not the right time for those who have been part of the capitalist system for a long time to indulge in that sort of absurd and unrealistic triumphalism we heard from Senator McCarthy this evening. It is wrong to say that it is all over, that Stalinism is over or that indeed communism is over — and there is a great distinction between the two.
I am old enough to remember what happened in Czechoslovakia when Alexander Dubcek was trying to do exactly what the people of eastern Europe are doing at the moment. Neither should we claim at this stage that we are in some way responsible for what is happening in eastern Europe. It is no credit to the West that the forces of freedom are rising in eastern Europe; it is something which they are doing spontaneously and autonomously themselves.
While this motion asks that we encourage this democracy I think it is right that we should be aware that this is not a time to precipitate action on our part, It is a time for restraint, for encouragement but for realising that the affairs of the east must not be interfered with. While we may approve of what is happening, it would be unhelpful for us to make irresponsible statements of the sort that Senator McCarthy made here this evening. While we acknowledge what is wrong in the east, what has been wrong and all the evils that have happened not only in that society but in this society, we should recognise that we ourselves can learn from some of the good things in the east which are now emerging to the gaze of the western media. For many years we have been told about but have been unaware of some of the great benefits in the east — in relation to housing, employment, jobs and the lack of the sort of poverty which we appear to see in the west. If this trend in the east continues it should teach us a lesson about looking at ourselves as well and saying that what is happening in our society, with a certain amount of introspection, is no better and no worse than what is happening there and that maybe they are advantaged by what is happening and that they will turn out in the end to have a greater, a better and a more humane society than ours.
The events of recent days have rightly been described as momentous. Indeed, Senator O'Toole described them as revolutionary and his description is quite apt. It is hardly eight months since the Soviet Union elected the new Congress of People's Deputies. That election was not fully democratic, yet already the Soviet parliament has demonstrated that it has the potential for being an independent decision-making body determined to bring about radical changes in the way the Soviet Union is organised and governed. During this time, we have seen Poland choose a non-communist government under Mr. Mazowiecki, while in Hungary the communist party has dissolved itself and preparations are under way for free parliamentary and presidential elections. In all these countries, political change is being accompanied by attempts to bring about a major restructuring of the economy, of the institutions of state and of society as a whole.
Even more dramatic are the events we are witnessing in the German Democratic Republic, whose leadership had long resisted change. Massive but peaceful agitation by its citizens eventually brought about the retirement of Mr. Honecker and his replacement as leader by Mr. Egon Krenz. More importantly, it obliged the authorities to reopen the Berlin Wall, to allow new freedom to travel, to promise free elections and allow the formation of a coalition government under Mr. Hans Modrow. There is still much to be done, but these events bring with them the hope that the GDR will, in the near future, transform itself into a democratic and pluralist state.
The sudden alterations in a country that was up till now resistant to the idea of change give grounds for hope that those other countries that still lag behind must soon accept the need for reform. Already, the gathering momentum for change has affected Bulgaria. Mr. Petur Mladenov, the new leader, has declared himself willing to accept reforms, albeit of a limited nature and within the existing institutional framework.
There are signs too, of incipient change in Czechoslovakia as far as the freedom of its citizens to leave the country is concerned. Nevertheless, the widespread demonstrations in support of political reform show that these initial concessions are insufficient to meet the legitimate demands of the people of Czechoslovakia for further fundamental changes.
The Government fully welcome and encourage those developments which point towards increased democratisation in Eastern Europe. We do this primarily because we believe that the ability freely to choose their Government and participate fully in the management of society will inevitably bring with it the possibility for the citizens of these states to enjoy at last the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms which we in Ireland take for granted but which have been in large measure denied to them.
At the same time, we recognise that recent events have an effect which transcends the borders of the countries concerned. They bring with them the prospect for a further decrease in international tension and for dispelling the residual mistrust that has for too long underlain relations on the European Continent. They also bring a challenge to all European countries: how to manage the affairs of the new Europe that is taking shape.
We believe that, in reacting to the changes that are now sweeping through Europe, we should maintain close contact and consultation with our partners in the European Community. As the Taoiseach inferred in the Dáil, the heads of state and government of the Community welcomed, last Saturday, the moves toward economic and political liberalisation in Eastern Europe, and undertook to adopt the necessary policies to support the peoples of Eastern Europe in their efforts to achieve democratic freedom. A number of proposals were made in this regard, and it was agreed that the Troika will study a proposal to establish a new international bank which would help in the restructuring and economic development of Eastern Europe; the Troika will report to the European Council in Strasbourg on 8 and 9 December.
Already a year ago, at Rhodes, the European Council reaffirmed its determination to act with renewed hope to overcome the division of Europe and promote the values and principles which the Twelve have in common. The Twelve undertook to strive to achieve full respect for CSCE provisions, promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, progress in the arms control and disarmament field, and the development of political dialogue with our Eastern neighbours. At Madrid in June, the heads of state and government reaffirmed the validity of this comprehensive approach, which integrates political, economic and co-operation elements, as well as their belief that progress in the fields I have mentioned remains a necessary element for further tangible results to materialise from the improved East-West relations.
Because the pace of reform varies so much from country to country, and some countries continue to refuse to carry out moves to liberalise, the Twelve have adopted a policy of treating each country on a case by case basis. They have, for instance, suspended negotiations for a further co-operation agreement with Romania on account of that country's human rights situation. The Paris meeting decided that economic aid to Eastern European countries would be conditional on a return to democracy, respect for human rights and secret and free elections in the countries concerned.
The Twelve recognise that the efforts being undertaken by many countries to restructure their economy will initially cause hardship to their population, and will require assistance from the world community if they are to achieve lasting results. The European Commission was requested by the Summit of industrial nations held last July in Paris to co-ordiante world response to the requests for assistance received from Hungary and Poland. In addition to the co-ordinating role of the Commission the Community has already made a substantial contribution of food aid to Poland, and will provide a budget line of 300m ECUs for assistance to these two countries in 1990. It is planned that a further 100m ECUs will be provided from the national budgets of the member states. Ireland is making its contribution to this effort. I am happy to say that the Estimates for 1990, published last week, make provision for a bilateral contribution of IR£650,000 for assistance to Poland and Hungary. This is in addition to our share of the assistance provided by the Community as such.
The Community is also expanding its relations with a number of countries of Eastern Europe. Following the joint declaration between the Community and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), a number of East European countries have accredited representatives to the Community. Both Poland and Hungary have signed co-operation agreements with the Community, and negotiations are at present under way to conclude a co-operation agreement with the Soviet Union.
In the political field, too, the Twelve are increasing their links with the more progressive East European countries. The Twelve Foreign Ministers of the Community met Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze at the General Assembly earlier this year. Meetings have also taken place between the Presidency and the Foreign Ministers of Hungary and Poland, as well as with Yugoslavia. It is the intention of the Twelve to build upon the results of these meetings and further develop relations in appropriate ways in the future.
The Twelve are convinced that the CSCE process provides the appropriate framework for achieving greater progress in East-West relations. Ireland has always attached great importance to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which is the forum in which all European countries — except Albania — are represented and in which the wide spectrum of relations between them can be negotiated. We warmly welcomed the adoption in January this year of a substantial and balanced closing document to the Vienna CSCE follow-up meeting. This reaffirmed the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and other CSCE documents, and also contained important new commitments in the fields of human rights, human contacts and security. We are firmly of the view that all obligations assumed in the CSCE must be implemented fully and are essential for full and fruitful co-operation between the countries of Europe.
One of the most important aspects of the Vienna Concluding Document (VCD) is the human dimension mechanism which enables participating states to monitor the implementation of the human rights provisions of the CSCE, and to raise with other states instances where they believe commitments in this field are not being observed. Already, the mechanism has been invoked by many states, including the Twelve, and has proved its value as a means of bringing about dialogue on human rights matters with other participating states.
Unfortunately, the record of implementation of the human rights provisions remains uneven. Many East European states have shown a dramatic improvement in the degree to which individual rights are fully respected in practice, yet in many others further progress is necessary. In some, little or no improvement can be detected. The Government have already had occasion to express their grave concern at the continued violations of human rights that occur in Romania, as well as of the treatment that, since May, has led over 300,000 Bulgarian Turks to leave their country and seek refuge in Turkey. The Czech authorities continue to treat their dissidents harshly, despite the example being set by neighbouring countries.
As referred to by Senator Raftery in his very thoughtful and considered contribution we are all uncomfortably aware that Europe is the scene of the highest concentration of conventional armed forces in the world. The vast majority of these are deployed by the opposing military alliances. Any developments which serve to create an atmosphere conducive to the reduction of these forces are to be welcomed. At present, in Vienna, talks are taking place in the framework of the CSCE aimed at the establishment of a stable and secure balance of conventional armed forces in Europe at lower levels (CAFE). The participants in this negotiation are the members of NATO and the parties to the Warsaw Treaty, those states which have the largest concentrations of military forces and equipment. I am glad to say that these talks, of whose progress we are regularly informed, are going ahead rapidly and there is reason to believe they will conclude ahead of schedule next year with the adoption of a significant agreement. I share Senator Raftery's concern that the cost of this armament could be put to much better use.
All CSCE member states participate in the second set of negotiations at present taking place in Vienna, the negotiations on confidence and security-building measures (CSBMS). Already, in Stockholm, the participating states in the CSCE agreed on a number of measures to enhance confidence and security in Europe. The Vienna talks are intended to build on the results of Stockholm, and it is our hope that they should go further and elaborate additional measures aimed at increasing confidence and security. Discussions are proceeding satisfactorily at the CSBM talks, and it is intended that agreement will be reached before the next CSCE follow-up meeting opens in Helsinki in March 1992.
The developments I have described in Eastern Europe would not have been possible without the major reappraisal of Soviet foreign policy which has occurred under President Gorbachev. He has expounded this on numerous occasions, notably to the United Nations General Assembly last December and, more recently, to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Major features of this "new policy" are the removal of ideology as the motive force of foreign policy and emphasis on the role of international law as the framework within which relations between states must be conducted. This latter is, of course, a principle which we and our partners in the Twelve have always regarded as central to the maintenance of normal relations. This new approach by the Soviet Union has had, as one of its most important results, the abandonment of the "Brezhnev Doctrine" by which the USSR arrogated to itself the right to intervene by force if necessary in the affairs of its allies. This point was referred to by quite a number of Senators in their contributions. It was this doctrine which stifled the attempts to introduce reform in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Had it still been in force today, it is certain that the events we are now witnessing could not have occurred. This was also a point that was made by very many Senators in their contributions.
We look forward to a further significant improvement of the good atmosphere that at present exists in East-West relations. The forthcoming meeting between President Bush and President Gorbachev will, we hope, serve to reinforce the links between the two super-powers and help to strengthen international security. We believe this will set the scene for the rapid conclusion of a number of negotiations in the arms control field.
Successive Irish Governments have sought a halt to the nuclear arms race and the eventual abolition of all nuclear weapons. We are encouraged by reports that negotiations in Geneva are making progress towards their objective of a 50 per cent reduction in the number of strategic missiles. The effects of such a cut would be felt most immediately in Europe, the area of greatest military confrontation in the world.
I can sympathise and concur with most of what Senator McDonald said in his very sincere and detailed speech, in particular with his hope that the Community should not miss this great opportunity to cement the hopes of the founding fathers of the Community. I noted Senator Conroy's analysis of contemporary Europe and his look into what the future holds, his hopes and fears for and about the USSR and, indeed, Eastern Europe and the effects its future direction will have on not only Europe but on the rest of the world, a point also touched upon by Senator Murphy in his very thought-provoking contribution.
German reunification was mentioned by a number of Senators. In my view, this is a matter for the two Germanies and is best left to the free choice of the German people.
Hear, hear.
Senator Jackman spoke of freedom and questioned what it means, a point also raised by senator Murphy. I cannot in the scope of this very limited debate answer Senator Jackman's question. However, my own view is that the greatest freedom is that of life itself. Another is the choice to elect a government from a free choice of parties and candidates, freedom to comment on politicians and policies.
Senator McCarthy's contribution gave us the benefit of his experience of travelling in Eastern Europe. It was, to say the least, controversial and the response was predictible. But tonight, as mentioned by Senators Ryan and Ross, is not the time to go into the rights and wrongs of various political ideologies or systems. There are faults in all systems and while that is so I would prefer to live under the system we have in Ireland and other democratic countries.
Senator Staunton said it would be desirable to establish resident and diplomatic missions in a number of countries which are at present moving towards democracy. As Senators are aware, our network of resident democratic representation is small and, unfortunately, must remain so for the future, given our limited financial and personnel resources. Possibilities for its extension are examined periodically in the light of our national interests and the availability of the necessary resources. I can assure Senators that when the question is next being reviewed due weight will be given to the points which have been made in this debate.
The Government are in full agreement with the terms of the motion before this House. We warmly welcome the events of recent months which have brought many countries in Eastern Europe nearer to democracy and full respect for human rights. We recognise that there is still much to be done before all the aspirations of their citizens are fully realised and that, as many Senators have noted, the support and encouragement of all the European democracies is vital at this stage. We are determined to play our part, both individually and as a member of the Community, and we will make full use of our coming Presidency of the Twelve to ensure that they can play a positive and full role in supporting change in Eastern Europe.
May I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive and very full reply to the terms of the debate? I do not think anybody in this House on any side, even though there were fairly sharp differences of opinion expressed this evening, could disagree with the general thrust of Government policy on this matter or on the need to follow along the lines which he outlined. In particular the Minister's emphasis on a country by country, case by case approach is the right approach at this stage. It is very easy for us, on the edge of Western Europe, to think in terms of Eastern Europe as one solid homogenous bloc. In fact, it is a rich tapestry of different countries, different traditions and different systems even if they were all within one particular overall framework. It is important that we do not have any simplistic views as to how the unfolding events in Eastern Europe are to be approached. I do not think any of us would think we have any sort of simplistic solution or panacea to offer because we are at the early stages of a process. Ten or 15 years ago if the events we are seeing today in Eastern Europe had happened the streets would probably be full of people rejoicing, the churches would be full, Te Deums would be sung, there would be High Masses, there would be triumphalist sermons and so forth because what is happening is something which very few people thought they would see in their lifetime. If these events had happened ten years go people would have been right to rejoice and celebrate because the regimes in Eastern Europe were and in most cases still are repressive, inefficient regimes which do not allow participation by their citizens, which in many cases deny them basic fundamental human rights.
It is very important at this stage that we do not allow a rewriting of history by people with a left-wing view of politics. There was some of that here this evening and there has been some of it in recent times. I do not want to be controversial this evening but I certainly have to look a little awry at some of the statements coming from The Workers' Party. It is very difficult to question anything The Workers' Party say without inviting a torrent of personal abuse and invective. That has been my experience over the past number of years when I asked the sort of questions I would ask of Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats, or the Labour Party: the answer has always been abusive.
I find the stance of The Workers' Party at the moment particularly intriguing. Up to a few short months ago many of the regimes in eastern Europe, and particularly that of East Germany, were held up to us as an example of how society should be structured and could be run. I did not hear one single voice from The Workers' Party in the years before the present upheaval suggesting that all was not well in East Germany, suggesting that major changes should or could be made or saying that reform was necessary. Now every time I turn on my radio or television The Workers' Party are there rejoicing in the advent of democracy in eastern Europe. There is a very serious question of credibility involved in all of this. I know it will not be addressed but I would like to put it on the record.
It is an easy question to put on record when there is not a representative of The Workers' Party in the House.
I am confident that what I will say will be reported and will be back in the Politburo, perhaps before the debate is over, but maybe I am over-emphasing the importance of this House in the general scheme of things.
It is not my purpose this evening to comment in detail on what the Minister has said. He has given us a very comprehensive and very satisfactory reply this evening. I certainly will not employ the invective used by Senator McCarthy on the back row over here but I do think some of the attacks were unfair. Senator McCarthy may have been excessive. I am certain he invited some of the attacks which came fast and furious from my learned colleagues on the back row but the fact is he was talking about regimes which are failed regimes. Most of the eastern European countries are, to quote a well used phrase, failed political entities. They are failed political entities, they do not involve their people in the decision making process, they have not provided free elections, they do not have free, open parliaments. They are failed economic entities and they are regimes which have relied to a great extent on repression of one form or another. That is a fact. For people to attack Senator McCarthy for saying that, however colourfully or excessively, is to fly in the face of facts, in the face of history. We do not have to look back too far to the Prague summer, to the bread riots in East Germany in 1964, to Hungary, to see very clearly and very starkly the type of regimes, which existed. There was a very strong view expressed by Mr. Honecker only a few short weeks ago, if we understand things correctly that perhaps the tactics in Tiananmen Square might well be used in East Germany. It was the old way and there are those in positions of power and influence who believe it may yet be the best way. We should not be naive about this.
We should not rush in to believing that all has changed. There are people in positions of power and influence in the countries we are talking about this evening who almost certainly believe that the old way is the best way and so we have to tread very cautiously in all of this. I would say to those who came in to attack Senator McCarthy that there was a strong core of truth in what he was saying, however excessively he said it, however much he set out to provoke, which he did, those of a very different point of view.
Like the Minister, I think there is not much point in talking about that at this stage. We are into a completely new phase and as a country we have a small role to play. We cannot be triumphalistic, we did not do anything to bring it about but we are now at a stage, with the Presidency of the European Community pending where, with imagination, our Government can provide guidelines, steer other countries into policies which will as far as possible, encourage the emerging democracies, if that is what is there, in the eastern European countries. Perhaps we are in a stronger position than most to do that because as a country which itself has suffered from division we can perhaps see more clearly than most through some of the myths. I hope we can be in a position to provide a truthful and honest guide to the emerging events in eastern Europe.
I am glad this Seanad opened with a debate on the exciting historic events in eastern Europe. With the constant supply of television programmes sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between what is truly historic and what is merely ephemeral. What we are seeing is truly historic. We are at the beginning of a process and it can go any way. We could very well see the reassertion of hard-line control, we could see the Honeckers re-emerging. There is no sense of the inevitable about where we are, there is no way we can be certain that the good guys are going to win at the end. We do not have the answers. We probably do not have a huge amount of knowledge at this stage of what is happening but I believe we will have a small but significant opportunity during our Presidency of the European Community at least to try to guide the process in a way which will prove fruitful for all of us, all Europeans, all citizens of the world, at the end of the day.
I believe this debate here this evening in its own small way will have started that process of debate in Ireland and I hope, in spite of some of the excessive language on both sides this evening, it will be a debate that can be conducted without too much ideological baggage on either side, a debate which will be motivated by common sense and by our common desire, as Europeans, to see a greater, bigger, more inter-active Europe of which we can all be part.
Question put and agreed to.
Before we go on to the next business, may I thank the Minister for his attendance at this debate and for his excellent contribution. The Seanad has started on a high note in terms of a debate on foreign affairs issues which are of current importance. Even though excessive or colourful language, or language that people might not like, has been used in this debate it was excellent. I sincerely hope we will continue during this session to advert to topical matters.
I would like to thank the Minister for his suggestion that instead of dragging out a debate of importance over three or four weeks perhaps we should tighten up our procedures and have a three-hour debate on a motion such as this on the day. It is a suggestion the House can take on board.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.