Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I extend a céad míle fáilte to the Minister of State to the House. He and I, and Senator Bradford, regularly attend meetings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I was trying to reorient my thinking that he was attending a plenary session of the Seanad rather than a committee meeting.

I welcome the Bill. I read most of the debate on Second Stage when the Bill was introduced in the Dáil last September. It is euphemistically described as a technical Bill. I found it difficult to get my head around it and have a specific problem with it. In the context of limiting the Government's actions, how does the Bill change the status quo? What difference will it make? The term used frequently by the Minister of State's colleague, Deputy Treacy, was that it was an unusual departure in that it limited the Government's role in law. This does not explain what it means to the layman because it was further stated that the Bill is in keeping with best international practice. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain the difference.

I was fascinated by the whole subject of diplomacy and went to the trouble of trying to establish where it all began. The term "diplomacy" derives, via French, from the ancient Greek "diploma", composed of "diplo" meaning folded in two, and the suffix "ma" meaning an object. The document conferred a privilege, often a permit to travel, on the bearer. The term came to denote documents through which princes granted such favours.

I was also fascinated to learn that in ancient culture women played a key role in diplomacy. When one considers that as legislators we are constantly attempting to raise the bar in terms of equality, in the area of diplomacy and international diplomacy going back to the earliest times, women were very much to the forefront of activity. Famous female political leaders such as Cleopatra VII, Isabella I and Elizabeth I were enormously influential in the history of diplomatic relations. Historically, women largely played a secondary but substantial role as the wives of diplomats. In 1923, the Soviet Union became the first country to name a woman as head of a diplomatic mission. The US, which began admitting women into the newly-established American career service in 1925, followed a decade later by appointing a woman as ambassador to Denmark. France permitted a woman to enter its diplomatic service by examination in 1930. After the Second World War, increasing numbers of women were making a career in diplomacy and more women became ambassadors. Perhaps the Minister will give us an indication of the number of female ambassadors attached to Irish diplomatic missions. As a Member of this House I have had the privilege to travel to several countries on Oireachtas missions during the course of which I have come across some exemplary women representing Ireland in the diplomatic arena. Many of them continue to serve at the highest level.

Of the 191 members of the UN, 113 have diplomatic accreditation to Ireland, with 54 based on the island of Ireland and 59 operating from the United Kingdom. I agree with the Minister of State that this shows the respect that exists for Ireland as a sovereign State and a small country playing a major role in diplomatic and foreign affairs throughout the world. I endorse the views of my friend and colleague, Senator Bradford, that the activities and professionalism that have been brought, and continue to be brought, to the world of diplomacy by our Irish emissaries abroad is exemplary. One can only feel proud in their presence for the manner in which they discharge their duties, not just at ambassador level, but at first secretary to third secretary level. The respect they have gained within their respective missions, and in their dealings with their host country's various personnel at government level, makes one feel proud that the flag is being flown by such distinguished people. I hope the Minister of State will convey the appreciation of the House for the outstanding work his diplomats are doing throughout the world to the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dermot Gallagher. He is a county man of mine, and I am proud to see him serving at such a high level for so long in the world of diplomacy.

Immunity rears its head in the legislation in regard to all of the organisations. The Minister of State outlined 37 organisations enjoying immunity. This has been the case throughout history. It became the norm that the laws that existed in the various host countries would not apply to diplomats or their families. The Act of Anne in the UK in 1709 exempted ambassadors from civil suits and arrest. In the 17th century, there was a famous agreement between the Ottoman empire and the British empire which forbade searches of British embassies abroad, exempted taxes and ensured there was plenty of free wine for the ambassador. I wonder whether these laws are still in existence, particularly the Act of Anne 1709. Was it revoked or does it still apply here?

All of this history of diplomacy and immunity came together in the Vienna conventions referred to by the Minister of State. It happened primarily because the position of diplomats and the public respect they enjoyed declined substantially in the 20th century. This development, combined with certain other factors, including the explosive growth in the number of new states after the Second World War and an increase in the size of diplomatic missions and the increasing prevalence in international law of the view known as functionalism, according to which diplomatic privileges should be limited to those that are necessary to enable a diplomat to accomplish his mission, led eventually to attempts to restrict diplomatic immunities and international treaties. Therefore, the conventions to which the Minister of State referred restricted these privileges granted to diplomats, their families and staff. Avoiding controversial issues such as diplomatic asylum and focusing on permanent envoys rather than on ad hoc representatives or other internationally protected persons, the convention accorded immunity from criminal prosecution and from some civil jurisdiction to diplomats and their families and lesser levels of protection to staff members who generally were given immunity only for acts committed in the course of their official duties.

I was surprised to learn that all of this extends to 37 other organisations named on the record of the other House. These include organisations such as the International Cocoa Organisation, the International Coffee Organisation, the International Olive Oil Council, the International Jute Organisation, the International Fund for Ireland and many other organisations with which we are familiar, such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. One would expect that organisation to be included but I am surprised the other organisations are included. Does it mean that all the people who are involved in these organisations operating in this country, and their families, have the same diplomatic immunity extended to them as the international organisations to which I referred, the resident ambassadors and the ambassadors who are accredited but are not resident here who would enjoy that immunity when they or their staff visit? While I do not want to dwell on the subject, like most people, I assumed that diplomatic immunity applied exclusively to diplomatic missions and ambassadors. However, it appears that it applies to these 37 organisations. If all of these bodies have permanent offices in Ireland, does it mean that people who come here on a regular basis, and who are associated in any way with any of these organisations, automatically enjoy all of the immunities and privileges of diplomats and their families who operate in Ireland?

It is important to continue to respect and adhere to the detail of the Vienna conventions because there are downsides. Despite signing up to these conventions, there are countries which do not recognise the immunities accorded under the Vienna conventions. The most explosive of these, and the one that is probably best remembered, is the seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran in November 1979 by supporters of the Islamic revolution in Iran, and the holding hostage of more than 50 American diplomatic personnel for 444 days. That is probably the most high-profile example of what can happen when a country does not extend or is not in a position to extend due to ferment in the country for whatever reason, the compliance under the Vienna conventions to diplomats in the host country.

A direct consequence of that seizure, in addition to the inconvenience and injuries perpetrated on innocent diplomats serving their country — it could just as much have been Ireland as any other country — was that it led to the defeat of Jimmy Carter in the US presidential election and the election of Ronald Reagan. The Iranians deliberately held the American diplomats hostage until the morning after President Carter left office as another insult to the man who had tried to rescue them. This was a case of military action which exacerbated and inflamed the situation and it is an example of what can happen.

Reference was made to Ireland's diplomatic engagement with Burma or, as the junta there likes to refer to it, Myanmar. I will never refer to it officially as Myanmar because it is Burma, a state crying out for democracy. The sooner the junta is removed from there, the better for that country and for relations with it. I defend the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to accredit an ambassador to Burma because the concept of diplomacy, which dates back to the earliest times, is about dialogue. Perhaps I am as guilty as others but sometimes when people criticise governments for taking particular positions, such as this one, they confuse foreign policy with diplomacy. They are two separate concepts. We have a foreign policy on what is happening with the junta in Burma but at the same time, we can continue to maintain dialogue. If diplomacy is about dialogue and confidence, there is some hope we might be able to change the minds of those in Burma and in other countries which have dubious democratic credentials.

I welcome the Bill, technical as it is. Perhaps the Minister of State might elaborate further on how it changes the situation on the ground.