asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs current Government policy in relation to world disarmament, and in particular nuclear disarmament.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - World Disarmament.
6.
Government policy on disarmament questions continues to focus on nuclear disarmament, because the challenge of eliminating these weapons remains at the forefront of our concern for the maintenance of world peace. The Government recognise that these weapons will not cease to exist in the foreseeable future, and that no real progress will be made in this direction until the two super powers agree on concrete measures to curb and reverse the nuclear arms race.
In this context we have welcomed the resumption of the bilateral talks between the two super powers and consider it important that they come to grips with the problems of the nuclear arms race, not only in the field of reductions but also with regard to the more fundamental issues of nuclear testing and the curbing of the spiral of nuclear arms. In the framework of the United Nations and in other disarmament fora we also play an active part in advocating and supporting measures in pursuit of these objectives.
While we reject the concept of nuclear deterrence as the long term basis of international security, it is unfortunately true that we must deal with nuclear weapons in the knowledge that they currently form the basis of security for most of the industrialised countries. Nonetheless we must recall that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, of which Ireland is an architect and steadfast promoter, sought to freeze the number of nuclear weapons States by securing commitments from many States, which had been considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons capability, to renounce this objective in the interest of international peace and stability.
The NPT was equally addressed to the nuclear weapon States. It required the implementation of commitments aimed at reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. The measure which it singled out as a first and most important step in this direction was the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. There can be no doubt that the conclusion of a CTBT would be the most credible demonstration of a commitment by the nuclear weapon States to their long term intentions to eliminate nuclear weapons. So long as these States maintain their option to test, they could not be said to have taken that road. Ireland has consistently promoted the goal of concluding a CTBT in implementation of the commitments contained in the NPT. The Irish delegation at the 1985 review conference of the parties to the NPT worked hard and successfully to secure from the conference a renewed commitment to the conclusion of a CTBT as a matter of urgency.
When I addressed the Third Review Conference of the parties to the NPT, I called for the introduction of a moratorium by the nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty in the context of negotiations on a CTBT, either in the framework of the trilateral negotiations which were broken off in 1981 or in the framework of the multilateral negotiations at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. I note that the Soviet Union has announced once again a limited moratorium on testing along the lines of a previous moratorium which it introduced prior to the NPT Review Conference. I am just as strongly of the view now, as I was when I so stated at the review, that a moratorium will only have value if adopted by all nuclear weapon States, or at least by those nuclear weapon States parties to the NPT. I do, however, believe that there is an obligation on all the nuclear weapon States to consider urgently the halting of testing as well as the negotiation of a CTBT.
While underlining the priority of questions of nuclear disarmament, we must record that the security system foreseen in the Charter of the United Nations is not being implemented. With increasing frequency recourse is being made to the use of force instead of to the machinery available for the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. Wars are being fought today which cause enormous loss of life, both military and civilian. We see the renewed use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War, weapons whose use has been outlawed since 1925 by the Geneva Protocol. For our part the Government have introduced export controls in order to prevent the acquisition by countries, which have used such weapons of chemical substances which could contribute to their chemical weapons capability. We have co-ordinated our efforts in this regard with our partners in the European Community in particular and also with other industrialised countries. However, such measures cannot be effective other than as a delaying action.
In the view of the Government it is of primary importance that a chemical weapons convention be concluded in the near future, both to prevent chemical weapons capability and use from becoming more widespread and in order to bring an end to the modernisation and stockpiling of these weapons by the two super powers. We believe that the time for the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention has arrived. The experts' work on implementation mechanisms has almost been completed and all that is required is the political will to conclude an agreement.
The Minister will be aware of the policy of one sided disarmament, as pursued by Messrs. Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, which contributed to the Second World War and in view of that, can I take it from the Minister's reply that the essence of the Government's policy on disarmament is that they pursue balanced disarmament?
As I said, while we reject the concept of nuclear deterrence as the long term basis of international security, it is unfortunate thus that we must deal with nuclear weapons in the knowledge that they currently form the basis of security for most industrialised countries. We would wish to see the elimination of all weapons. We want to start somewhere and stop the growth of nuclear weapons.
As a balanced reduction?
I am coming to that. The only basis on which that can be done is when the two super powers are satisfied that they themselves are in balance and then bring then down together. I do not think it is possible to bring down one without bringing down the other.
I had hoped to congratulate the Minister on his statement about the test ban treaty and, in recognition of the adherence to test banning as a test of good faith, I want to say that I agree fully with the Minister on that aspect of his reply. I ask the Minister if he would reconsider what I think is a very dangerous sentiment which he has expressed. I am not sure exactly of the thrust of his remarks but they seemed to be somewhere along the lines that nuclear armaments are the basis of the security of industrialised nations? I would ask him if he would repeat that aspect of his reply. If my interpretation of what he has said is correct would the Minister not regard that as a very real departure in our foreign policy and would he seriously reconsider accepting such a very dangerous, deadly principle?
I am afraid it is true that nuclear weapons are the basis on which the two super powers see their security positions. That is where the Geneva conference is starting from in an endeavour to bring down the level of nuclear armaments. The fact that I recognise it does not mean I approve of it. I would not wish to see it as being entirely otherwise than it is. We must deal with the facts as they are.
Does the Minister accept that there is a very important distinction of principle between accepting that it is the basis of their security and what most Deputies in the House would adhere to, namely, that the basic cause of insecurity in the world is that the super powers keep on building their nuclear armaments in the mistaken belief on both sides that they must keep on until they reach equilibrium with the other? Would the Minister not agree that therein lies the basic fallacy and the danger in the whole situation?
I agree with that. The fact that I agree with it and that I disapprove of what is going on does not alter the fact that the two super powers believe that nuclear weapons are the basis for their own security and they intend to build until they get them in balance and until one side is sure the other has no advantage over it. The only way we can get them to reduce those levels is when they are both satisfied they are equal. That is the basis of the Geneva conference. I hope it will succeed and that events over the past few months have not put a spoke in that wheel.
I noted that the Minister viewed with concern, which I welcome, the stockpiling and movement of chemical weapons. At this stage when they are about to be moved I would like to ask the Minister if as a non-NATO member of the European Community we can bring every effort to bear on the other member states so that they will not allow their countries to be used for the stockpiling and updating of another malignant and incredibly stupid method of warfare?
What the Deputy has said about chemical warfare is absolutely correct. It is most regrettable that chemical weapons should have been used in the Gulf War in the last two years, for the first time since the First World War. It would be entirely inappropriate to discuss such a matter in the framework of political co-operation in Europe. It has no place there. What has a place is the condemnation of all forms of weaponry, whether they be conventional, nuclear or chemical weapons and an endeavour by a country like Ireland, hopefully supported by its partners, to make whatever political gestures are necessary to see that the level worldwide is reduced. The actual deployment of weapons is not a matter appropriate for discussion in the European Community.
Deputy Haughey, and then I am giving Deputy Mitchell the last question.
It is my innate politeness and good manners breaking out, a Cheann Comhairle.
I admire it greatly.
(Interruptions.)
I should like to raise a few further points for information. Most Deputies go a long way towards agreeing with each other on these vital, perhaps the most vital, questions facing us all in the modern world, but the Minister inadvertently slipped into talking about the two nuclear powers. I am sure he meant——
The two super powers.
——the need to have multilateral disarmament of all kinds. Would the Minister use every means available to him to encourage the renewal and, hopefully the successful renewal, of the summit process which appeared to be so optimistic last year but which seems to have gone a little awry recently? May I take it that it is the position of the Irish Government to use every endeavour to encourage the renewal and reinforcement of that process between the two super powers? Even though it is a multilateral question it is through the joint efforts, hopefully, of the two super powers that progress will be made. Could I also ask the Minister whether or not we are also pursuing every avenue open to us through the United Nations? I would like the Minister to reaffirm that while we recognise the reality of the position of the two super powers, nevertheless, for a small nation like ours it is to the United Nations and their procedures we must ultimately look for success in this area.
I agree. We will continue to underline the importance of the United Nations in all these questions and use the general council and each of their committees to reinforce that message. The nuclear test ban treaty is the most important thing which has come out of the United Nations. As I said in answer to Deputy Mitchell's question, we were one of the main architects and will continue to be one of the strongest supporters of that. That role will continue as long as I am in this office.
I do not believe that disarmament is one of the most important questions facing the world. It is the most important question facing the modern world.
In view of the contribution to the Second World War which one sided restraint on armaments made, can I take it that it is a central plank in Government policy that a balanced reduction in nuclear armaments and in armaments generally should be attained?
The Deputy can, indeed. With the goal being the complete elimination of weapons, the only realistic policy to pursue within that goal is a balanced reduction.