The letter from Brian Cowen TD (January 8th) in reply to my article "Commitment to democratic policy formation is very shallow" (The Irish Times , December 29th) was particularly bad-tempered. So be it. However, apart from not answering some of the issues I raised, it is factually incorrect in a number of matters.
Some minor ones first. He suggests that I missed a meeting on December 19th at which members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the European Affairs Committee had all the issues I raised in my article explained to them by the Minister.
There was no meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee of which I am a member on December 19th. There was, however, a meeting of the European Affairs Committee, of which I am not a member. Indeed, the minutes of a meeting on December 15th of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which had hoped for a joint meeting, states: "It had been hoped to have a joint session with the Committee on European Affairs on Tuesday, December 19th, but that approach had not been agreed."
The European Affairs Committee went ahead with its meeting on December 19th and its Chairman, Bernard Durkan TD, had TDs in general alerted that if they were available they were free to attend. For Mr Cowen's benefit I repeat: I am not on the committee to which he spoke on December 19th. He really should check his facts.
More serious is Mr Cowen's reference to the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960. The very quotation he uses contains a crucial contradiction of his position, that the Irish Defence Act is sufficient to enable Irish participation in an EU Rapid Reaction Force. The Act facilitates the participation of Irish forces in UN peacekeeping efforts. However, and unfortunately for Mr Cowen's position, the Act defines an international United Nations force as "a force or body established by the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly".
The word "established" is crucial. Does Mr Cowen suggest that the RRF is being established by the UN? The RRF is being established by the EU itself. A later "mandate" or "authorisation" delivered by the UN Security Council or invoked in its name will not, I suggest, meet the meaning of "established" in the Act.
The Minister feels that his article in The Irish Times of November 19th answered the public concern. It did not. It is indeed a fact that Fianna Fail policy on most matters is now being serialised in The Irish Times in articles and responses in the names of Ministers; and for good measure a nostalgia column on the good old days in Fianna Fail is added on Saturdays. I am sure there is a niche market for such contributions, but the currency is getting seriously devalued. The article referred to by Mr Cowen did not answer any of the issues I raised.
As to his Government's support for the committee system to which he refers - let us have it delivered in staff, resources and such library and research facilities as will make consultation meaningful. What we have is an illusion of a committee system, poorly resourced and for most purposes ignored by the media, which is in itself a great scandal.
Finally, as to the possible abolition of any effective parliamentary tier for the Western European Union which I raised, the Minster's statement that the Foreign Affairs Committee's resolution on this subject, which was forwarded to him, "will usefully inform Ireland's position as we move forward on these questions" is an insult to one's intelligence. What does this mean? It is, I fear, low-grade waffle, and at best patronising towards elected members of Parliament and those who elect them. The public deserves better from its Minister for Foreign Affairs. - Yours, etc.,
Michael D. Higgins TD, Labour Party Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs,
Dail Eireann, Dublin 2.