asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Stockholm Disarmament Conference.
13.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Stockholm Disarmament Conference.
12.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the proposals, if any, that have been tabled by the Irish delegation at the Stockholm Disarmament Conference.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together.
The Conference on Confidence and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe (CDE) takes place within the framework of the 35-nation Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), having received its mandate from the Madrid follow-up meeting of the CSCE which ended in September 1983. The task of the CDE is to seek negotiated agreement on a series of militarily significant confidence and security-building measures designed to make military behaviour more open and more calculable — for example, measures designed to reduce fears of surprise attack. If agreement can be reached on an ambitious series of such measures before the next CSCE follow-up meeting in Vienna in November 1986, this will open the way to a second stage of the conference dealing with disarmament.
The first session of the conference, which began on 17 January and ended on 16 March, was addressed by the Foreign Ministers of all participating states. The second session began on 8 May and will end on 6 July. While the CDE is not intended to serve as a substitute for negotiations on disarmament conducted elsewhere, the fact that the conference is taking place is important at a time when the overall climate in East-West relations is not good, and when the major nuclear arms control negotiations between the two superpowers are broken off. In these circumstances the political significance of the conference has transcended its technical character.
During the first session three series of proposals for new confidence and security-building measures were tabled, the first series being tabled jointly by the 16 members of NATO, the second by Rumania, and the third series jointly by eight neutral and non-aligned countries. On 8 May the Soviet Union tabled six outline proposals already put forward orally by Eastern European states during the first session.
Eastern and Western participating states have so far pursued divergent conceptual approaches to the work of the CDE. In the proposals from Western participants, including neutral and non-aligned countries, the emphasis is on measures of a concrete and militarily significant kind. The last of the six outline proposals from the Soviet Union would involve concrete measures, but the main emphasis in the Soviet proposals is on declaratory measures, such as a proposed treaty between participating states on non-recourse to the threat or use of force — an existing principle of international relations, enshrined in the UN Charter and repeated in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. The fact that little progress has yet been achieved in the work of the CDE is in part attributable to difficulties in reconciling these divergent approaches. The work of the conference would also appear to be affected by the difficult climate prevailing in East-West relations, particularly in relations between the two superpowers.
The Irish delegation at Stockholm has not as yet tabled proposals, first, because proposals for concrete and militarily significant confidence and security-building measures, particularly proposals tabled by Western participants, including neutral and non-aligned States, cover much of what the first stage of the CDE could hope to achieve and, if agreed, would represent considerable progress: secondly, because the work of the CDE is at an early and still largely exploratory stage. Whether the Irish delegation will in due course table proposals, alone or with others, will depend on how the negotiations evolve. We and our partners in the Ten are concerned to see respected the criteria in the Madrid mandate that the confidence and security-building measures to be negotiated should be of military significance, politically binding and provided with adequate forms of verification. The Irish delegation have made this concern clear in addressing the proposals now before the CDE. In the Minister's statement at the opening of the conference and in subsequent statements the Irish delegation have advocated that the conference should seek agreement not only on measures to bring about more openness in regard to military activities, but also on measures involving constraints or limitations on the activities of military forces. We have welcomed the fact that the paper tabled by eight neutral and non-aligned participants incorporates this approach. The delegation have also expressed our concern that the measures to be agreed at the CDE should be designed to meet not only the security needs of members of military alliances, but also the security needs of the participating states which are outside military alliances.
I regret very much that the Minister of State felt the need to read through his reply as quickly as he did, because I would have liked to have analysed it as it was being given. Can he list for me what common positions we have adopted so far with our EEC partners and issues on which we have taken an independent stance? Can he say whether we have sought a nuclear freeze?
The position in regard to the various proposals is a little complex. If the Deputy wishes I can give him an outline of what the state of play is. Towards the end of the first session the neutral and non-aligned states tabled a joint paper containing a mixture of proposed measures to bring about openness in the military area on the one hand and measures to constrain military activity on the other. This was following essentially two other series of proposals which for simplicity I will classify as NATO proposals and Warsaw Pact proposals. The NATO proposals involve six concrete measures to bring about openness in the military area including mandatory exchanges of military information and mandatory notification and observation of specified military activities in compliance with verification measures. The Warsaw Pact outline proposals include assumption of an obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and a treaty on the non-use of force, nuclear or conventional, to which proposals they attach the most importance. Their other outline proposals involve the reduction of military expenditure, removal of chemical weapons from Europe pending negotiation of a ban on these weapons worldwide, the establishment of nuclear-free zones, ceilings on the scale of military manoeuvres and prior notification of major manoeuvres of ground, air and naval forces.
In relation to the issue of a nuclear-free zone, this is included in the package presented by the Warsaw Pact countries.
Would the Minister of State say whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs specifically sought a nuclear freeze? I thank the Minister of State for the information he gave me, but will he try to deal with the question I asked?
I have a copy of the Minister's speech which he made at the opening and which I can make available to the Deputy. At that stage the opening speeches would have been of a general nature and my recollection of the speech, without being certain, is that there is no reference to a nuclear freeze in it.
There is not?
In the opening statement.
Having regard to the fact that there was no mention of a nuclear freeze then, is the Minister of State aware that in the newspapers it was reported that Ireland is the only country not to have tabled proposals at the Stockholm Disarmament Conference? Can the Minister confirm or deny this?
I saw a report in The Sunday Tribune of 6 May which indicates that Ireland is not the only country so far not to advance proposals. I do not believe that that report is totally correct. To give one example, I am aware that one member of the neutral and non-aligned group is not a co-sponsor of the neutral and non-aligned proposals. However, I have outlined the Irish position at the conference and also the position of our delegation in regard to the tabling of proposals. In some ways it could be said that our position emphasises our situation as a militarily neutral country.
The Minister has outlined the role of the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries. Can he say if the Government have developed a policy on the role of the Western European Union and how the Government see the role of the WEU? Secondly, could the Minister of State confirm that the policy enunciated by the Taoiseach is still Government policy, that is, that Government policy is to seek a balanced reduction of nuclear armament? I emphasise the word "balanced".
In relation to the WEU, we have a question on the Order Paper. We are not members of the WEU and we do not intend to be so. Any developments in the WEU are a matter for the members of that body. It can be explored in more detail in the context of a specific question later on. I endorse fully what the Taoiseach said in regard to a balanced reduction of nuclear arms.
Because of the importance of what is involved, would the Minister convey to the Minister for Foreign Affairs a suggestion that we should have a discussion on the matter in this House as soon as possible?
I will convey the Deputy's suggestion. It is important that Deputies have an opportunity of discussing foreign policy.
At regular intervals.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
I had a question which was disallowed. It related to the resolution in the European Parliament on 19 February regarding a charter of rights for hospital patients. I contend that the Minister for Health in his actions in my county was acting in conflict with those rights. Will we get an opportunity to discuss that charter which is to be drawn up in the next few months?
I had to rule the question out of order. I understand that events may take place within the next week or so which may permit the question to be repeated.
Since this case is the subject of a court hearing I would hope we would be able to discuss it as a matter of urgency in the context of the Resolution passed by the European Parliament.
You cannot discuss it until the case is over.