Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jul 1996

Vol. 468 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - International Arms Trade.

Mr. T. Kitt

I thank the Minister for coming into the House to take this motion. I call on the Tánaiste to clarify the Government's position concerning yesterday's report by AFrI which links Irish companies with the international arms trade and military industry. However tenuous these links are, the findings of this highly significant report expose the hypocrisy and double standards of the Government in relation to the arms industry. The Government simply cannot have it both ways. In the recently published White Paper on Foreign Policy it was stated that "Ireland has no indigenous arms industry and thus no economic dependence on arms exports". This report spells out clearly that that statement was an untruth and this House deserves an apology for such deception.

The Tánaiste must now ensure that the serious questions raised in this report are answered honestly and that the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Enterprise and Employment and Tourism and Trade are brought into line. This Government, and indeed successive Irish Governments, have campaigned vigorously against the international arms trade and military industry and have consistently supported the protection of human rights. The Minister present has been very much to the fore in that area.

We have been told that the Irish Presidency would be used to intensify our efforts and influence others in relation to these issues. This report has, in effect, shattered our credibility in this critical area of Irish foreign policy.

The Government must act immediately to ensure that if an Irish company is involved with the international arms trade, it must be instructed to break such a link and diversify its products into non-military business. Surely it is possible for these companies to establish the "traceability" of their products. There can be no compromise on this matter. We have adopted a principled foreign policy position on the arms industry and this position must be maintained with absolute consistency. How can the Tánaiste, who has just returned from Indonesia, raise with any degree of credibility human rights in East Timor if we in Ireland are involved with the same international arms trade which has had such a devasating impact on the people of East Timor?

Let us remind ourselves of what has happened and what is happeining in East Timor. It is estimated that in 1975 60,000 people — 10 per cent of the population — were killed in East Timor after the invasion by the Indonesian forces. Following that invasion more than 200,000 people perished as a result of the Indonesian conquest. Despite the UN resolutions demanding an end to the invasion, the US and UK continued to supply the military hardware used by the dicator Suharto and his generals in the campaign of mass murder.

Whereas moves are now afoot in the US Senate to ban arms exports to dictatorial and aggressive regimes, the sad reality is that Britain's arms trade with Jakarta is actually expanding. A deal was signed earlier this year between a British company and the Indonesian Government for the sale of 50 to 90 Scorpion light tanks and armoured personnel carriers. Similar vehicles were used by the Indonesians to repress civilian demonstrations in East Timor. The latest batch of 24 BAE Hawks commenced delivery to Indonesia in April 1996. While the Indonesian armed forces prevent journalists and independent observers from going there to investigate the situation on the ground, the British Government continues to prop up, militarily, the Suharto regime.

Let us be absolutely clear on where we stand as a people and a country, and cherish and nurture our policy of military neutrality. I ask the Irish Government to show consistency on this issue, to ensure that our economic and trade policies are absolutely in line with our foreign policy so that we can continue, as a small nation, to speak with a strong and principled voice in supporting human rights and opposing vigorously the sickening growth of the arms industry and its usage in propping up many corrupt and repressive regimes throughout the world.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms Burton)

I reiterate Ireland's position as stated in the White Paper on Foreign Policy: Ireland is not a producer of armaments and will not become one. This policy has been supported by successive Irish Governments. This Government is proud of that policy and we are confident that the people of Ireland share that pride. We have a long and honourable record as a non-belligerent and peace-keeping nation. I do not accept that we should be saddled with some sort of guilt by association which this report would appear to suggest.

As Minister with responsibility for overseas development assistance, I have personally outlined on a number of occasions my strong concern about the role of arms in the developing world. I agree with the substantive thesis of the AFrI report that the arms industry has an entirely deleterious effect on development. My concern on the issue was expressed most recently at a conference I organised on relief rehabilitation and prevention. I also recently introduced legislation banning the manufacture and export of landmines. As part of our EU Presidency programme I intend to further press for a total ban on landmines and generally promote the disarmament policies of the Irish Government.

To turn to the specifics of this report, I want to point out that only seven of its 40 pages relate to the activities of Irish companies. The finding presented in the report single out from the full spectrum of products of 14 named companies those which appear to be militarily relevant. The report is careful to disavow any intention "to insinuate that these companies are proactively involved in contributing to the production of weapons systems." It states that Ireland's contribution to and links with the arms trade is located in the sphere of subcontractor supplier to main contractors, that it is at the bottom of the production pyramid. It even acknowledges that military-related industrial activity is not a major part of the Irish economy. It is something, I suppose, that these qualifications are included. This circumspection makes it all the more incomprehensible that the report should immediately go on to state: "modern weapons systems rely on the input of nuts and bolts, microchips, wiring and so on. The micro design may differ but the macro design serves the same purposes, to maim, kill and destroy". The House will agree that the companies in question, which provide quality jobs to Irish workers, deserve better than to have their work inpugned in this baseless, naïve way.

The report outlines two case histories which show the tragic effects of the arms industry. However, nowhere does it suggest that there is any connection between Irish products and the arms used in East Timor and Nigeria. Deputy Kitt's comments, presumably based on reading the report, bear that out because he has thoroughly condemned British armaments in the context of Indonesia. There is nothing in the report about Irish companies in the context of East Timor. If the companies in the report have evidence of the use of Irish products in either of these places, or indeed in any other conflict area, I would ask them to let us have the specifics of such use.

I have spoken on many occasions to people involved in the production of this report in the run up to the ban on landmines. They mentioned that they had concerns of possible Irish uses. I asked the Deputy to immediately bring to our attention any such concerns. I am still waiting. While the report suggests risks, it does not constitute any such evidence. It is unfair to use the tactic of guilt by association to suggest that Ireland has some responsibility for the atrocities committed in areas such as East Timor when we have an honourable record recognised by the NGOs, including this one, for promoting conflict prevention and respect for human rights in these and other areas.

The Government takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure that Ireland exercises effective control over relevant exports and that Ireland is not used to circumvent the export controls of other EU member states which have had direct involvement over decades in the manufacture and export of military related goods and technology. This whole question of export controls on strategic goods, is a complex one. It may be helpful if I avail of this opportunity to set out the facts of Ireland's policy and practice in the matter.

Ireland has no indigenous defence industry and was not a member of COCOM, the relevant EU committee. For reasons which reflect positively on this country, our direct experience of controlling strategic exports is less extensive and more recent than that of any EU partner. For the past two years the Departments concerned, notably the Departments of Tourism and Trade and Foreign Affairs, are working closely together to place our system on a fully secure legal and administrative basis. In this context, particular value is placed on the direct access that membership of the various multilateral export control regimes mentioned earlier provides for information concerning sensitive items. Developing expertise or access to the expertise necessary to evaluate export licence applications competently is a very important task. This applies particularly to sophisticated dual use goods.

The preparation of two new statutory instruments to cover dual use goods and arms respectively is at an advanced stage. When these instruments are adopted, Ireland will have in place a fully comprehensive, updated system for controlling the export of strategic goods. Pending their adoption, the existing legislative framework enables us to exercise adequate controls.

If the authors of the report have concerns relating to either a specific or a series of companies anywhere in Ireland, I appeal to them, as I did in regard to landmines, to bring such cases to our attention or to that of other Departments. This is their responsibility as citizens. They have not done that so far. Although I spoke to them as recently as several months ago on this issue, nothing has been forthcoming. It is not right to impugn honourable Irish companies by the tactic of guilt by association. If they have evidence, they should bring it forward and we will deal with it as a matter of urgency.