Vol. 320 No. 2
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will propose that the international community reopen negotiations for general and complete disarmament, and for the implementation by nuclear powers of Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty by which they undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.
18.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will call for the imposition of a time limit on the negotiation of a treaty on nuclear disarmament at the forthcoming nuclear non-proliferation treaty discussions in Geneva, Switzerland.
19.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has specific proposals to make at the forthcoming nuclear non-proliferation treaty discussions in Geneva, Switzerland and, if so, if he will outline same.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take questions Nos. 17, 18 and 19 together.
The goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control was set out by the United Nations as the desired objective in the disarmament field as early as 1961. Ireland fully supports this objective. Nonetheless if we are ever to achieve this goal we must, not simply talk about it, but set out a practical programme on how it can be achieved and encourage realistic measures which will bring it about.
With this in mind Ireland together with five other countries proposed a comprehensive programme on disarmament to the United Nations on 1 December 1970. In the course of his detailed statement on disarmament at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1978 the former Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, reiterated Ireland's commitment to general and complete disarmament and towards that end proposed a ten-point programme of concrete disarmament measures. A specific programme of action was agreed at the special session. The UN Disarmament Commission elaborated that programme last May and the Committee on Disarmament has begun work on negotiating the elements of a programme of general and complete disarmament in time for the Second Special Session on Disarmament which will be held in 1982. While general and complete disarmament remains our goal we must recognise that negotiations should continue on arms control and more limited disarmament measures.
At the forthcoming Second Review Conference of the Treaty on the non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons the Irish delegation will work for the strengthening and strict implementation of the provisions of the Treaty. The non-Proliferation Treaty has been successful as an instrument for limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. However, we are seriously concerned that the increasing technological capacity of many countries could place the nuclear weapons option within the reach of more and more countries. The prospect of a continuing arms race between the nuclear powers adds to these concerns. We believe it is particularly important that the forthcoming review conference should reduce these concerns, help arrest the dangerous trends in the arms race and achieve the following concrete results:
(i) a more determined effort by the nuclear powers to fulfil their treaty obligations particularly the solemn obligation contained in Article VI of the treaty on nuclear disarmament;
(ii) the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and, in the absence of this, an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapons testing;
(iii) full guarantees by the nuclear weapon states that they will never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states; and
(iv) greater control over the transfer of sensitive technology by means of strict and effective implementation of IAEA safeguards.
I understand the Deputy's point in relation to the imposition of time limits for the achievement of general and complete disarmament. However, I think that in the present circumstances such a proposal would have little prospect of meeting with success. In addition negotiations on time limits could delay the urgent task of achieving agreement on substantive and practical disarmament measures.
I have read the former Taoiseach's fine speech on the whole question of nuclear disarmament to the United Nations. Might I ask the Minister firstly: did our changed attitude to the question of non-proliferation, our decision to vote against the non-proliferation treaty represent an alteration in our attitude to trying to make sure that there will be an end to the whole question of nuclear armament? Our position used to be completely unequivocal, that we were opposed to the use of nuclear weapons and wished that they be completely abolished. Has our position changed in any way as a result of the softening of our attitude to the non-proliferation treaty?
I assure the Deputy that there is no softening of our attitude to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. At the forthcoming second review conference to which I have referred we will be working for the strengthening and strict implementation of the provisions of the treaty. Proposals are made from time to time at the UN which are not realistic. We have a reputation for being a realistic country and when we put forward proposals or support proposals they are realistic. There is no point in proposing or supporting what might be termed pious resolutions. Progress can be made only on the basis of supporting resolutions that will be passed and that have the prospect of being implemented.
Question No. 20.
I have always considered the word "realistic" to be one of the most dangerous words in a politician's vocabulary because it can mean anything. Would the Minister agree that we are in a unique position in that there is no question of our ever having bombs or using them, to set a target such as a five-year limit which would give the opportunity of working towards some sort of limit rather than having merely the SALT agreement which is limited to two countries and does not encompass France, Britain or China and also——
This is a long statement.
That may be so, but we are all involved in this.
I appreciate the Deputy's concern in this area. It is a matter of concern for all of us but, having studied the matter in detail, we have concluded that the best way to approach it is to strengthen the existing non-proliferation agreement and to ensure that there is strict implementation and monitoring of it in order to ensure its enforcement. There is a prospect of getting agreement among the nations on that aspect but I agree in principle with what the Deputy says.
Does the Minister mean all the nations?
Yes, and I include in that the nuclear nations. I agree that in theory the imposition of a time limit would be the ideal but from the soundings we have made our information is that such a proposal would have little prospect of meeting with success. That is the reality of the situation on the ground. We are going ahead and supporting disarmament proposals which we consider will get the backing of all of the UN. This is a proposal that could have the effect of reducing armaments and of ensuring the continuation of the development towards curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
There was a phrase in a speech made by the former Taoiseach to the effect that we should not contribute to the rhetoric on disarmament that was recorded down through the years. Looking back over the years since 1960, would the Minister not agree that the general impression is that there has been more rhetoric than action in this whole area?
This is purely argumentative.
I would not agree with the Deputy. Much progress was made last year in this regard.
Would the Minister not agree that it is impossible to come to any lasting agreement with the Russians who have succeeded in fooling statesmen of the world and who are engaged in double talk and double think? Would the Minister not agree also that when the Russians talk about peace and disarmament and when they are endeavouring to persuade other nations to engage in disarmament, they are arming themselves to the teeth and continuing to invade friendly nations such as North Yemen, South Yemen, Afghanistan and many countries in Africa? Is it not time that the statesmen of the world awoke to the wiliness of the Russians?
They lost millions of their people in the last war while we remained neutral.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Did the Deputy not offer his services?
One of the problems in regard to any disarmament proposal and its administration is the very real difficulty in monitoring such a proposal within a State of the nature of the USSR.
20.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps taken by the Government in accordance with its undertaking at the UN to give priority to the preparation and distribution of printed and audio-visual material relating to the dangers represented by the armament race and relating to disarmament efforts.
The recommendation to which I presume the Deputy is referring, is contained in Paragraph 100 of the Final Document of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1978.
In reply to a question on 25 March, to which I would refer the Deputy, I said that the Secretary General had prepared a model programme to assist Governments in developing their local programmes for Disarmament Week which begin each year on 24 October and is devoted to fostering the objectives of disarmament. The Secretary General's report was submitted to the 1979 session of the General Assembly which concluded last December. It is at present being studied in my Department.
However, I should add that disarmament documents published by the United Nations are made available by my Department and indeed those relating to last year's session of the General Assembly have been sent to individuals and representatives of groups who requested them. It has been our practice also to publish important statements made by Irish representatives at the United Nations and at other arms control and disarmament conferences.
There were a number of specific proposals in the final agreement but what about the proposal for a debate in each national parliament on the subject of disarmament? Have the Government any intention of carrying out that undertaking?
I understand that arrangements have been made for a foreign affairs debate to take place shortly and I shall be devoting much of my speech then to disarmament. While the Deputy and I may differ in that I prefer the more practical step-by-step approach while he is reaching for the stars, we agree basically in this matter. As a small country we are in a position to take a lead.
There is an organisation who are known as the CND who are campaigning for nuclear disarmament.
They are attempting to go to the schools and educate children in this very important matter. Would the Department consider making available to this organisation facilities such as slides, leaflets and so on to help them in their talks or, alternatively, of helping them financially to carry out this very fine work?
I intend to contact the organisation in question with a view to discussing with them something on the lines suggested by the Deputy.
21.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will take action to secure the establishment of a new multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament in which all nuclear states and other military powers would participate.
At its Special Session on Disarmament in 1978 the United Nations General Assembly agreed to set up a new deliberative body on disarmament—The United Nations Disarmament Commission. It also agreed to restructure the existing Committee on Disarmament as a negotiating forum.
The deliberative body—that is the UN Disarmament Commission—includes all member states of the United Nations. It meets annually in New York for four to six weeks to discuss policy guidelines on disarmament.
The negotiating body—that is the Committee on Disarmament—has a more limited membership of 40 states. These include the five permanent members of the Security Council who are also the five nuclear weapons states, and virtually all other militarily significant states.
This committee is not formally speaking an agency of the United Nations but it reports annually to the UN General Assembly and the Assembly in turn refers particular issues to it. In this way all member states of the UN in the course of annual debates in the General Assembly can comment on the work of the committee.
In view of these arrangements, I do not think it necessary to propose the establishment of a further negotiating body as suggested in the Deputy's question.
22.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will call for a freeze in military budgets as a contribution to the cause of world disarmament.
The freezing and gradual reduction of military budgets as a way of bringing about disarmament has frequently been proposed at the United Nations. Ireland has had a particular interest in this idea and we included it in a comprehensive programme on disarmament which we and certain other member states proposed at the United Nations in 1970.
In his speech at the UN Special Session on Disarmament in 1978 the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, put forward a related idea. He suggested that the General Assembly might consider adopting as a voluntary target a percentage limit on military expenditure—expressed perhaps as a percentage of GNP—which states would be encouraged to observe. His proposal, with other proposals at the Special Session, was forwarded to the Committee on Disarmament for further consideration.
The final document agreed by consensus at the Special Session, did state that the gradual reduction of military budgets on a mutually agreed basis would contribute to curbing the arms race. It was agreed that the General Assembly should continue to consider what practical steps could be taken in this area. These efforts have, however, not resulted in any commitment by the major military powers to freeze or reduce their military budgets.
There have been a number of resolutions at the General Assembly on this matter over the years, including a resolution by Sweden proposing a standardised method of measuring and comparing military budgets, which Ireland has co-sponsored.
Most recently at the 1979 Session of the General Assembly we co-sponsored a resolution, tabled by Romania, which made the proposal to freeze and reduce military budgets a priority item on the agenda for the next meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Commission which takes place in New York in May.
In face of the recent deterioration in the international climate there is a tendency on the part of great powers to increase rather than reduce their military expenditure. Nevertheless we will continue to do what we can to encourage the idea of a reduction of military budgets as a step towards general disarmament under effective international control.
Is there not a pharasaical note in the Minister's criticism of the great powers when in fact the Republic of Ireland, one of the small powers, has increased its military budget in spite of what Deputy Jack Lynch called the rhetoric of disarmament? The only real increase in budgetary spending here this year has been on military spending.
The Deputy is drawing a very long hoe if he seeks to relate our increase in military spending to the military expenditure of the major powers. There is absolutely no comparison. It is a different league. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Is the Minister not aware of the discrepancy between what his Government are saying in the United Nations and elsewhere and what they are actually doing here, without drawing any comparisons between Irish defence spending and United States defence spending?
There are two different arms perspectives. The Irish dimension, in regard to our military requirements, is so totally different from the dimension involved in the great powers that the two are just not comparable and the Deputies know that.
Is the Minister saying that the credibility of this country's approach in the United Nations does not suffer when anybody with two eyes can read what we are doing ourselves?
We need an effective Irish Army, an effective Air Corps and an effective Naval Service for our requirements and we do not apologise for making our forces effective.
23.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will follow the precedent set by Japan by declaring all nuclear weapons to be illegal.
So far as I am aware, Japan has not declared nuclear weapons as such to be illegal. However Japan, like Ireland, has by its own decision committed itself not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.
We consider that nuclear weapons pose a grave danger to humanity. Ireland was one of the first countries to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons when it was opened for signature on 1 July 1968. Under this treaty we have agreed not to receive nuclear weapons or to manufacture or otherwise acquire them and we fully adhere to the provisions of the treaty. I may add, as the Deputy is no doubt aware, that the treaty could be attributed in large part to an initiative taken at the United Nations by the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Frank Aiken, in 1958.
Can the Minister say whether our action in signing the non-proliferation treaty and whether the Government's policy is such that it not only precludes us from owning, acquiring and manufacturing nuclear weapons but also precludes our joining any alliance which has control over a nuclear weapon?
That is correct.
I believe the Minister may not have understood my question. What I wanted him to say was whether the Government policy, as outlined by him in relation to nuclear weapons, also includes a definite commitment not to participate in any military alliance that has control over the use of nuclear weapons.
We signed that agreement for Ireland and our commitment is on behalf of Ireland. That is the only commitment in it and the commitment in it is what I have stated here. We have agreed not to receive nuclear weapons or to manufacture or otherwise acquire them and we fully adhere to the provisions of the treaty.
Outside the conditions of the non-proliferation agreement, would the Minister confirm or deny in relation to Government policy that, as an obvious extension of their belief in signing the non-proliferation treaty, they are also committed not to join any military alliance that controls nuclear weapons?
That is a separate matter.
Will the Minister answer me?
The Deputy put down a question and I have answered it very fully. Nobody is requesting us to join NATO. Nobody has ever asked us to do so. Nobody wants us to do so and we do not want to join either.
Would the Minister not accept that the Irish people would like something stronger from him than the statement "We do not want to join NATO"? Can the Minister not give a more definite commitment than that?
Nobody has asked us to join NATO.
There is no question on the Order Paper about NATO.
If the Deputy will put down a question on that, I will answer it.
I would not join any group that has the Minister as a member.
We are in the European Economic Community, as the Deputy knows, and we have no defence commitment and other countries in that Community have nuclear weapons.
