The speech by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the UN General Assembly each year is a long-established set-piece of Irish diplomacy. Because it is a setpiece, it allows the tracking of priorities of foreign policy from year to year. Interestingly, the last three UN speeches have been given by three different Ministers - Dick Spring in 1996, Ray Burke last year, and David Andrews this year, on September 23rd.
Mr Spring had to confine his remarks on Ireland's foreign policy to Northern Ireland developments. Northern Ireland and developments in the peace process occupied much of his successors' speeches, culminating in the "deep privilege" Mr Andrews spoke of in commenting on the good news of the Belfast Agreement. "Globalisation" has featured early in the last three speeches. Mr Andrews was a lot more pessimistic about globalisation than Mr Burke. "Globalisation and liberalisation have brought significant benefits to many countries and are changing the shape of our world," said Mr Burke. A year later Mr Andrews said: "All around us - side by side with rapid technological and material development - we see in every region of the world uncertainty, insecurity and conflict."
This shift in mood is evident well beyond Ireland, of course, but one would always hope that foreign policy would be less prone to mood swings than the money markets.
As before, development assistance was highlighted by Mr Andrews as a main priority of Irish foreign policy. Again, Ireland was stated to be committed to achieving the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP in aid spending. This statement has been made in ever-so-slightly amended form over the years. But whereas Mr Burke went on to state the new Government's policy of achieving a level of 0.45 per cent of GNP by the 2002, Mr Andrews omitted to mention it.
In a set-piece speech, that is a strange omission. Of course, there has been no statement that the Government is no longer committed to meeting this target; but why therefore was it overlooked? Set-piece speeches also point up what is not achieved on the international level, sometimes by the mere repetition of language.
In 1996, Mr Spring said: "The European Union invites all member states to join in a new global partnership for development." In 1997, Mr Burke said, "We need to seek a new partnership between developed and developing countries." In 1998, Mr Andrews stated that the achievement of basic development goals like dignity for impoverished people "requires a new partnership of international engagement and commitment".
Obviously, very little progress has been made internationally towards "the new partnership", however defined.
Mr Andrews this year added to the staple exhortations about disarmament the Irish initiative last summer with seven other countries to launch a "Declaration Towards a Nuclear Weapons Free World". Mr Andrews said that the steps called for were "premised on a clear and unambiguous commitment . . . by the five nuclear weapon states to engage in nuclear disarmament negotiations within an entirely new context". It seems that the Minister recognises that the success of the initiative by Ireland and the seven other states is wholly dependent on the attitude of the five nuclear states and the three nuclear weapons-capable states. It may be a way of saying not to expect miracles from the declaration alone.
Another new initiative Mr Andrews mentioned is Ireland's candidature for a seat on the UN Security Council for the session 2001-2002. He claimed that Ireland has worked to play a "bridge-building role" among UN member-states, and that Ireland's approach as a member of the Security Council "would reflect the interests of the broad membership". This is an important statement of the basis on which we are seeking a Security Council seat. We claim we will be representative of the broad membership. Presumably we shall have to demonstrate to quite a few member-states how this will be so.
Conflict prevention has become a key concern of Irish foreign policy. One could debate with the Minister as to whether "we should all acknowledge that there can be no real peace or security without development". Arguably, the absence of development has not been a cause of conflict; indeed, it is recognised that conflict undoes years of development and thus conflict occurs even where development has "happened".
Mr Andrews rightly emphasised the need to address the origins of conflict and not just the symptoms. He underlined Ireland's support for the UN and Regional Organisations in the area of conflict prevention. But, unlike his immediate predecessors, he did not draw attention, even obliquely, to why the UN had ended up ineffectual in conflict prevention. Mr Burke was silent in regard to capital punishment, but Mr Andrews said "the abuse of the death penalty" was an important human rights issue. Is the problem the abuse of, or the use of, the death penalty? He said that Ireland would "continue to work for the universal abolition of capital punishment". The Dail has called in the Government to promote "a resolution which would create a universal moratorium on capital punishment in 1998". This is rather like the landmines campaign, only more difficult.
Mr Burke mentioned drugs as a matter on the international agenda, saying that in June 1998 the General Assembly would meet in special session to address the drugs issue. Perhaps the special session did not end up warranting much of a mention by September of this year. Gone off the agenda this year, too, was a reference to nuclear pollution in the Irish Sea.
There were some quirks in the speech. In relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mr Andrews said "We all have questions to answer". This naturally invites the domestic audience to ask what questions he has in mind that Ireland must answer.