The antipathy to a public involvement in discussion of Ireland's foreign policy has a long history. In the 1980s my own proposals for setting up a Foreign Affairs Committee were vigorously opposed.
In Studies I wrote of the strongest foreign affairs committee model being the committee in Denmark, and of the House of Commons committee being weak. Even a weak committee drew an opposition. Is it now a case of the committee being weakened by a process of attrition?
We now have an active Foreign Affairs Committee, in which the members take an active interest despite the media's apparent indifference. Like the other Oireachtas committees, however, it is hopelessly understaffed, underfunded and neglected by the Department of Foreign Affairs as a source of influence in any policy-making sense.
This committee would, for example, be a most serviceable forum for carrying through the programme of discussion envisaged by the White Paper on Irish Foreign Policy just a couple of years ago. It is not chosen for such a task.
It is an indicator of how slow our administrative structures are to change that we are not able or willing to recruit staff to serve structures we have decided are necessary. Be it committees, museums or theatres, there is a consistent history of Department of Finance wrecking of projects approved by ministers in other departments and of decisions made in principle by cabinet.
The scandalous underfunding of the legislature, and its supporting institutional structure, is a clear indicator of how shallow our commitment to democratic policy formation really is.
There are those who hold the view, of course, that foreign policy is an art governed by mystique, handed on from mandarin to mandarin in a golden continuity from Talleyrand himself. Such a priesthood understands why subtlety is never deceit and the primacy of what is not stated over written opinion. Such views have been in the decline for some time, but the elegant survivors of this species have not quite expired.
The recent performance of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence, Messrs Cowen and Smith, has to be reviewed in this context.
Building on Bertie Ahern's motto of "I will do what I promise if it suits me and the opposite if it suits me better", in relation to a referendum on Partnership for Peace, they have slid into a set of commitments in relation to the Rapid Reaction Force without a public debate on such issues as:
The nature and location of the conflicts perceived as likely to emerge.
The definition of security. Is it defined widely in the sense of the civil society, or is it to be defined narrowly in a military sense?
What is to be the institutional, logistical and policy relationship to NATO?
What is the future of the parliamentary forum of the WEU? Will its new shrunken forum exist as a rubber stamp for Council of Ministers' own rubber-stamping of logistical military decision-making?
What is the command structure? Brian Cowen suggests that the political will take precedence over the military in terms of control, but how is this advanced without a parliamentary mandate or, indeed, any acceptability at all?
What are the implications for GDP of such commitments as have been made, and do these new commitments reduce our capacity to retain our much respected UN peacekeeping record?
One could go on. Suffice to say that apart from some of such matters being raised on the Adjournment of the Dail, when we had 15 minutes, or at Question Time, when we had six minutes, we have not been allowed a discussion. Not only the public in general, but the Oireachtas in particular, cannot be trusted in the Government's mind to openly discuss issues which are important and complex. Indeed, their very complexity makes simplistic analysis unhelpful.
Finally, Brian Cowen has beautifully encapsulated the present unsatisfactory confusion by his recent remarks on the United Nations mandate, which he has suggested will be a condition of Irish action with the Rapid Reaction Force.
Pressed as to where this condition is stated, he told the Dail no new reference was needed. The matter was covered, he told us, in the Defence Acts. It is not.
The Defence (Amendment) Act of 1960 requires Dail approval for commitment of more than 12 troops in other than unarmed service. It does not mention UN approval. At the European Affairs Committee he took up two positions. Asked if Ireland's commitment of troops could be vetoed at the Security Council, he said No. Later he was back to the UN mandate, that would be necessary!
It would be interesting to know if the defence Acts are to be amended to cover the ministerial musings. Then again, maybe the Minister has fast-tracked such proposals as he may have, but has not told us about, for reform of the Security Council.
What a pity that so few can be trusted with discussing matters that affect us all, and future generations, in our relationships with the wider world. The public, I believe, are much more interested than our Government appears to think.
Michael D. Higgins TD isthe Labour Party spokesman on foreign affairs