Mr. Noel Dorr:

It would be conventional to say I am happy to respond, and I am. I would be happy to engage in longer discussion but it would be hard to fit it all in. I am not sure I have captured all of the questions. If I miss anything, please forgive me. Senator Walsh spoke about low morale, and there is low morale in the European Union. He spoke about the troika and I agree with those comments. I harked back to 1914 to try to lift our eyes a bit, as we can contrast the Europe of today with the Europe of history, and particularly the horrors of the 20th century. In the paper I wanted to try to lift us from the understandable disarray or bad feeling we might have about certain things to a larger level, and I hope that will happen.

Senator Walsh spoke about the question of unity and attitudes to it. Of course we would all like to see a united Ireland agreed in peace where we would work together. During my time as an official in the Department dealing with foreign affairs, I was at the Sunningdale conference and I was also there when the then Taoiseach met Mrs. Thatcher for the first time. I was involved in the negotiations for the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, I attended the talks under Sir Patrick Mayhew at the beginning of the 1990s and I was there for the framework document of the Downing Street declaration. I had retired before the Good Friday Agreement was made. All the time there was a question of consent from the Unionists. As I tried to indicate in the paper, the old Irish question had two complex aspects which interacted, the question of relations between Unionism and Nationalism on the island and, in turn, the relations between the two islands. These matters interacted and in a way that was bottled in the narrower ground of Northern Ireland, where it was left as a subject of contention, which it still is to a degree. The question was how to agree, and eventually Ireland and Britain, with the parties and people concerned, reached the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. We ratified it, including conditions for change, and we put it into the Constitution. The power of two referendums, North and South, was very great, and we hope that has given scope to the aspirations to persuade each other and stop the contention between the two agendas. Although there is hope for the future, the other point I tried to bring out was that we wanted the people of Northern Ireland to feel they had a shared future, and that if they worked together the institutions for co-operation would gradually produce a positive effect. It would be great if one day we could reach unity in Ireland but I am not sure how helpful it would be to emphasise right now.

I am not directly involved so I cannot really judge either with respect to Northern Ireland or with respect to what is happening, but I have the feeling that for Unionists the old fear of Dublin is now much less and they seem to be willing to come to Dublin to attend events and so on. There is still the question of relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland, or the shared-out future. I hope and believe that we in this State are not seen as a threat any longer, and over time we hope and aspire.

Deputy Crowe spoke about the Haass talks and the fact that Unionists did not compromise. I am dependent on press reports and that seems to have been the point. He indicated that there was no agreement on basic issues such as the economy, the narrative and so on. That is sad and true. We had all hoped that normal politics on normal political issues would begin to work in Northern Ireland but there is still an underlying tension and competing narratives, and progress has been slow.

The Deputy spoke about Europe and possible political union in a united states of Europe. I have always thought it wrong to think of Europe in those terms. The argument I tried to make in the paper and which I strongly believe is that something new is emerging in Europe, which is a union of states and people. It amounts to more than any international organisation we had before, as those organisations have regard to state relations to each other. This reaches to the public and the system of law that the European Union establishes. It should not aim to be a federal state, as the phrase "a union of states and of peoples" is important. The Lisbon treaty brings out the point that the people have the power to elect the Parliament, with the states represented in the council.

There was a point about the lack of solidarity, and again I indicate that I was trying to lift our eyes to the larger picture over the past century since what happened in Sarajevo. It is true that we focus on the shots fired by Gavrilo Princip on 28 June 1914, as it is a nice symbolic event to mention. The events that followed changed the world, not the shots. We are commemorating the centenary this year, which is why I referred to it.

I was also asked about the Seanad and how my suggestion in that regard might develop. It is not for me to tell parliamentarians what kind of reforms they should make in their structures. My idea is a basic argument that the Seanad could be put to good use, and that would clearly be part of some kind of larger reform. Perhaps some thought could be given to the system of election and the ways in which expertise is brought into the Seanad. I would not like to try to prescribe that in detail, as it was simply a suggestion.

The Deputy indicated that MEPs are not recognised, which is true. The European Parliament has been given a very important role in recent treaties, particularly the Lisbon treaty, as there is now a role of co-decision with the Council. It is a joint legislator in that regard in matters of European law that deeply affect all our lives and go right down to the individual in the State and not just the relations between governments. It is understandable in a very large constituency that there may be more focus on the smaller national constituencies and it is a pity there is not a greater understanding of the role the European Parliament can and should play.

Deputy Durkan mentioned changes in foreign policy and how they are to be implemented. He spoke of embassies following and promoting the national interest, which they do and should do. It is not a matter of a luxury to have a diplomatic service; it is meant to work for the nation, which it does. It is not holding a state to an emphasis on trade and so on, although that was always part of the process when I was in the area; I can remember that vividly from when I was the ambassador in London. As I indicated in the paper, business people may prefer to do their business in London without the embassy being there but it may be different in a country such as China, as the embassy could be necessary from the perspective of local authorities. In London we had regular dinners at the behest of IDA Ireland in order to bring in people who were interested in investing in Ireland. We also had receptions for An Bord Bia and so on, with an effort to co-operate with Irish State agencies and individual exporters. That was in the 1980s, and I hope our embassies will always continue to do that.

Deputy Durkan also asked if we are capable of adopting wholly new policies to deal with world problems. The big question is whether the world will be able to handle that. I have used the term "planetary management" and although it may sound a bit rhetorical, it is becoming more literally true. We are one world, which we have realised over the past 30 to 40 years, and this was greatly symbolised for us in the famous photograph taken of the earth from the moon.

We suddenly realise that this is the only place we have, the only place where life exists as far as we know. Now, we have reached a type of limit. People used to talk in the old American west about the closing of the frontier. If one wishes to use that type of language, the global frontier has closed now. We see the limits of resources, climate and so forth all interconnected. It is a huge problem and whether our institutions and the UN, weak as it is, will be capable of handling it is the big question. While we talk all the time about our national interests, and rightly so, we must also have that other thing in mind. That was the reason I ended as I did, by raising larger questions.

I have talked about Northern Ireland. The Deputy asked about neutrality and said that Irish people had fought in wars all over the world. He talked about new peacekeeping skills and whether we could use them. I was very impressed with our Defence Forces, when I had contact with them from time to time in the past, and, from speaking to people in the Curragh and so forth, with the way they have developed and adapted their approach to peacekeeping. We all are very proud of what they do. Certainly, the questions the Deputy raised are precisely the questions I would hope we would debate when we talk about neutrality. What worries me is that when it came to each EU treaty, it was almost like a pantomime with people saying, "Oh yes it is" and "Oh no it is not". It was always that type of debate about neutrality. What we must do is talk about what exactly we are doing and what we mean by it.

In some of the debates on referenda there was a tendency to say, "Hello EU, goodbye UN". That is not the case at all. My experience was that the UN was anxious for the European Union to try to help and provide peacekeeping facilities and so forth. At the broader level, that is the reason we are co-operating with our partners and joining in the joint training and the like. After all, the other three main neutral states we always mention in Europe - Finland, Sweden and Austria - find it possible to take part fully. We can co-operate with them.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan raised four questions. One was about human rights and trade. That is a vexed and difficult question. The United Nations is universal and there are all types of governments there, some we like and some we very much would not like. If one reduces it to the people we would like, it becomes more like an alliance or the European Union. In the world we have today we need a universal organisation. At the same time there is the issue of commitments to human rights and how we recognise the two. The Deputy is right to raise the problem.

On the specific matter she mentioned, trade agreements and workers' rights, we could certainly do things in that area, but on the general question of Ministers visiting other countries to promote trade and the like, that is always a difficult matter. There might be some countries, such as South Africa in former times under apartheid, that we just did not want to deal with, but generally we deal with the world as it is and our Ministers go on trade missions. It is right that they should express the Irish concern when there are concerns to be expressed on human rights, not to an extent which is found offensive but to an extent where people will listen and be influenced. I have been with Irish Ministers and, as an official, one was working on the type of thing a Minister might say which expressed something with some integrity but at the same time was not offensive and was listened to. It is very hard to prescribe that in general, but that is what I believe our Ministers should do. We cannot just come to the country and say, "We are better than you and this is it". It is not that type of thing. We carry a certain influence and people will listen sometimes, but it must be done carefully and properly.

The Deputy asked how effective the UN is. She talked about Bosnia, Rwanda and so forth and asked how we can have confidence. We cannot. The UN mirrors the world. It is a universal organisation and it is the world reflected in a certain way. All we can do is hope to make it more effective. It is ineffectual in some respects but if it did not exist, I believe it would be necessary to reinvent it, and it would be almost impossible to reinvent it in today's world. I emphasise that it has changed its character. It is not terribly effective on what it was supposed to do from the beginning, which is enforce the peace. That was the alliance idea. However, it has developed a network of relationships around the world which civilise the world a little and make it a little better. We can hope to change it over time, but we cannot really have confidence. That is the challenge ahead. It has lasted for nearly 70 years, and that is significant.

The Deputy talked about coherence in our foreign policy. I worked for a long time in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in the beginning of my presentation I tried to say that foreign policy is very diverse. What has the Minister for Finance or the Minister with responsibility for trade been doing? They are all involved in foreign policy. There is a phrase used in the international development aid paper I talked about, "One World, One Future", which was published last year, about whole-of-government action. In a way, foreign policy is whole-of-government policy. Obviously the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has a lead role, along with the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Costello, but it has to involve coherence as far as possible on the part of the Government.

I think the Deputy asked my opinion on the current leaders, but I would prefer to give an opinion on Frank Aiken and Conor Cruise O'Brien rather than on the current leadership. However, I will make a general point. As a very junior diplomat, I was at the UN with Frank Aiken and I worked under Conor Cruise O'Brien. I admire and respect them and, indeed, have written a little about them. However, the Ireland of that time was an individual, isolated, small state. It was not admitted to the UN until 1955, although we had applied in 1946. When we spoke in the UN, what we said was respected but, to a degree, we were small and seen as small and not connected with anything. In today's world, we are part of the European Union which is, in a way, the largest and most coherent and effective area. I will not compare it with other areas, but it certainly plays a role at the United Nations in concert on its foreign policy. It cannot always agree but when it does, it plays quite a powerful role.

Ireland is respected as a member state of the EU and, of course, we speak for the European Union when we hold the Presidency. That gives weight to what we are saying. On the other hand, it is inclined to inhibit the degree to which we make ringing speeches. If one takes the effort to get agreement into the pre-meeting concertation among the EU member states, where one might persuade the EU to go softer on something or to do something, one's speech might have to be tempered a little to the common position at that point. There is a certain tension there, but I believe we carry very considerable weight as a member state of the European Union. Of course, we are small and I do not wish to exaggerate our role, but we are respected at the UN. I served for three years as the Irish representative there.