Vol. 194 No. 5
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for External Affairs whether in the light of the Government's recent statement to UNO that it could not ask non-nuclear States, of which Ireland is one, to give a pledge not to manufacture, acquire, or station nuclear weapons on their territories he will indicate the circumstances in which Ireland is prepared to seek to acquire or station nuclear weapons or forces here.
27.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether the United Nations resolution of 4th December, 1961, which gave rise to the Acting Secretary-General's recent letter of enquiry to the Irish Government on the subject of nuclear weapons which was replied to by the Minister on 7th March, was supported by, and voted for by, the Irish delegation to the United Nations; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons why he is now no longer prepared to support the proposals contained in this resolution.
28.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether the letter received by the Irish Government from the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations on the subject of limitation of nuclear weapons requested this country to pledge itself not to receive or manufacture nuclear weapons in perpetuity; if not, whether the pledge suggested was to be temporary and voluntary; and whether he considers the objections raised by him to the Secretary-General's suggestions in his letter of 7th March to be valid in the case of a temporary and voluntary pledge.
29.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether his statement that some of these (non-nuclear) countries, although they had no present intention of seeking to alter this state of affairs, would nevertheless, it was felt certain, refuse to pledge themselves never to admit their nuclear armed allies has any particular application to this country; and if he will state, in clarification of this statement whether this country has now in fact so refused to pledge herself.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29 together.
I have placed in the Library of the Oireachtas copies of the correspondence to which these four questions refer: that is, the Acting Secretary General's note P.O. 134 of 2nd January, 1962, and my reply thereto of the 7th March. The relevant United Nations Resolutions are also to be found in the Library.
It will be seen from a study of these documents that the Acting Secretary General's note was concerned with the Swedish resolution of the 4th December last for which we voted. This resolution did not call upon States to enter into specific commitments. It merely requested the Acting Secretary General to make two inquiries from all member States:
(1) The conditions under which countries not possessing nuclear weapons might be willing to enter into undertakings to refrain from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring such weapons.
(2) The conditions under which they would refuse to receive in the future, nuclear weapons on their territories on behalf of any other country.
In reply to the first inquiry I informed the Acting Secretary General on the 7th March that the Irish Government would be happy to subscribe to an international agreement containing provisions under which States not possessing nuclear weapons would undertake not to manufacture or otherwise acquire control of such weapons.
It will be noted that neither the Irish resolution on the Prevention of the Further Dissemination of Nuclear Weapons of the 5th December, 1961, nor any of the previous Irish resolutions on the subject, contemplated that an international agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons would be temporary. All our resolutions and my speeches in support of them made it clear that what we sought was a general permanent international agreement and our reply to the Acting Secretary General makes it clear that the Irish Government are prepared to bind themselves permanently under such an agreement not to accept or acquire control of nuclear weapons.
Our reply to the second enquiry of the Acting Secretary General was in conformity with the anti-dissemination resolutions we proposed in the United Nations in 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961. Each of these resolutions represented the maximum which we believed would be accepted in the gradually improving climate of opinion in favour of the proposals. If we had linked our proposals with a proposal to prevent nuclear States from equipping their troops with nuclear weapons wherever they might be, or their allies from admitting such troops to their territories no matter how gravely they felt themselves menaced, our resolution calling for an agreement against the spread of the ownership and control of nuclear weapons would not have been passed unanimously last year. Indeed it would not have been passed at all.
I need hardly say that if there were a possibility of a general agreement with the necessary safeguards to confine nuclear weapons to the territories of the nuclear Powers, we would be most willing to accept it, but as there is firm opposition to this suggestion by many nuclear and non-nuclear States, it would, in our view, be most unwise to link it with negotiations for an agreement against the spread of nuclear weapons which is now accepted in principle by all members of the United Nations.
The replies which the Acting Secretary General has now received have confirmed the belief we have held since 1958 that a number of States could be persuaded to bind themselves not to make or acquire control of nuclear weapons provided they were not compelled at the same time, in the absence of an effective system of international security, to bind themselves never under any circumstances to admit to their national territories their nuclear-equipped allied forces.
I am more than ever convinced that proposals for de-nuclearising certain areas if they are to be successful must form part of an agreement accepted by a group of States and backed by the U.N. and the major Powers which will not only eliminate nuclear weapons but will also limit all weapons of mass destruction, exclude foreign troops and provide for the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the enforcement of the rule of law in the area concerned.
Now that both the United States and the U.S.S.R. have incorporated the prevention of the further spread of nuclear weapons in their disarmament proposals we should, I believe, concentrate our efforts in promoting an international agreement on the matter. Such an agreement would reduce world tension and open the way for negotiations to eliminate nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction area by area throughout the world.
Is it correct that the Government still subscribe to the Resolution for which they voted on 4th December last and that there is no inconsistency in the reply which the Minister has sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations?
None, no.
May I take it that our policy, via the most recent communication to the Secretary General of the United Nations, is that we favour the restriction of nuclear weapons to the three nuclear Powers and that we do not favour the de-restriction of these weapons? May I take it that that is still our policy at the United Nations?
Yes—the four nuclear Powers.
Is it not a fact that the Irish delegates to the United Nations last November and December made it quite clear that any decision with regard to the dissemination or making of nuclear weapons would be temporary and voluntary and any decision would be binding only in a temporary and voluntary manner? Would it not appear now from the Minister's statement that the Government envisage that any such decision will be of a permanent and binding character? Has there been any alteration in the Government's attitude since November last?
There was never any suggestion in any of our Resolutions, or in any of my speeches in support of them, that we would be content with an agreement to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, other than a permanent agreement. There has been no change in our attitude in regard to the desirability of such an agreement being permanent.
Is it a fact that our policy at a certain stage in the United Nations was that we, in no circumstances, would accept nuclear weapons here? Has that policy changed in any way? Would we now consider the acceptance of nuclear bases, for instance?
I have told the Deputy that all the documents in connection with our Resolutions in the past and the present Resolution, our reply to the Secretary General of the United Nations, and his letter to us, are in the Library. I hope that the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs will be up for discussion next week. I invite the Deputy to study the documents in the Library and we can, when the Estimate comes along, then discuss the whole matter in a manner which it is not possible for us to discuss it now.
I appreciate it is a very complicated issue, but surely that is a simple question of a very fundamental change in policy. Did we at a certain stage say we did not wish to contemplate the acceptance of nuclear weapons and nuclear bases? Is it the position now that we may, in certain circumstances?
We never said any such thing. What we did say was that we could not ask those countries depending for their security on their nuclear-equipped allies to throw out those allies in the present state of the world. However, that is a side issue. The main issue is that all the members of the United Nations have agreed that an agreement should be negotiated which would prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, which would prohibit the giving of nuclear weapons, or information as to how to make them, by nuclear Powers to non-nuclear powers, and which would prohibit the acceptance of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear Powers. That is one principle upon which everybody is agreed. For my part, I do not want to get it mixed up with the de-nuclearised zone idea because that idea is very violently opposed by a number of people and by a number of States prepared to accept the terms of the Resolution we got passed. It is important for the world that we should concentrate on that now, particularly since the United States and the Soviet Union have accepted it as part of their disarmament policy.
The Minister has not answered my question.
This is becoming a debate. Question No. 8, the Minister for Health.
On Question No. 26——
The Deputy has put three questions already.
The Minister has not answered the most important question asked in this State for the last 40 years.
