Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jun 1999

Vol. 506 No. 6

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, pursuant to Article 29.5.2º of Bunreacht na hÉireann, approves the terms of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, signed by Ireland on 24th September, 1996, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 10th June, 1999.

Since the first – and, thankfully, so far the only – use of nuclear weapons in 1945, the world has sought ways of preventing their proliferation. Down the years, Ireland has continually called on all states to refrain from testing nuclear weapons and to embrace nuclear disarmament. Growing concerns among both states and non-state actors about the consequences of a large number of countries holding nuclear weapons – and the increased likelihood of their use if that happened – led to the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, which was proposed by one of my predecessors, the late Mr. Frank Aiken, in 1958. Another significant treaty, banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, was concluded in 1963.

Ireland remains committed not only to non-proliferation but also to disarmament. The nuclear weapons states must speedily take steps towards achieving total nuclear disarmament, as they are obliged to do under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was with this in mind that I, along with the foreign ministers of seven other countries, launched a declaration entitled "Towards a nuclear weapons free world: the Need for a New Agenda" on 9 June last year. This initiative is set in the context of the 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion that the nuclear weapons states must pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. It is an effort to find the middle ground in nuclear disarmament debate and, by so doing, seeks to encourage the nuclear weapons states to engage with greater commitment in the disarmament process. A resolution based on the declaration was approved on 4 December 1998 by a large majority of the UN General Assembly; 114 states voted in favour, 18 voted against and 38 abstained. The wide-ranging support as well as the fact that so many allies of the nuclear weapons states, including China, itself a nuclear weapons state, abstained, was very encouraging and has girded us to pursue this initiative in all relevant fora. In particular, next year's NPT review conference will provide a unique opportunity to achieve concrete results in respect of nuclear disarmament.

The current treaty structure – the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water – has had considerable success in limiting the number of nuclear weapons states. However, that structure left a clear gap by permitting the nuclear weapons states to continue testing new weapons underground. The solution to this problem was found in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which removes the anomaly by forbidding all nuclear weapons tests anywhere. For this reason, Ireland has long been a consistent and active supporter of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I am, therefore, very pleased to move this motion approving the terms of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, commonly known as the CTBT.

Let me briefly explain how the treaty came about and why I am asking the House to approve its terms today. It was initially negotiated within the framework of the conference on disarmament in Geneva. The text was then adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 September 1996 and opened for signature on 24 September 1996. Ireland signed on the first day. To date it has been signed by 152 countries and ratified by 37, including 12 of our 14 EU partners.

The treaty bans all nuclear test explosions, wherever they may be conducted. It also obliges all states' parties to ensure that no person within their jurisdiction or control participates in or assists a nuclear test explosion. In order to verify compliance with the prohibition, an international monitoring system will be established. This system will comprise 312 stations around the globe which will conduct continuous seismological, hydro-acoustic and radio-nuclide monitoring. The network will permit the detection of any nuclear explosion.

The system will be run by a supervisory body which will be established in Vienna, namely the CTBT Organisation or the CTBTO. The organisation will have the powers to inspect any sites on which it is suspected that nuclear tests have taken place. It will also have the technical expertise to make reliable judgments on suspicions.

In addition, the organisation will provide a forum for ensuring that the treaty's aims and objectives are met, as well as for consultation and co-operation among states' parties. As in other international organisations and bodies, the organisation's budget will be provided by contributions from states' parties, based on the United Nations scale of assessment, adjusted, as appropriate, to take account of the differences in membership between the two organisations. Pending the entry into force of the treaty, a preparatory commission for the CTBTO has been set up and it has begun to establish both the monitoring system and the organisation's administrative structure.

The treaty will enter into force when the 44 countries, which it names, have ratified it. The 44 countries in question are those which the International Atomic Energy Agency deems to have a nuclear capability, whether civilian or military. Ireland is not among them. So far 41 of the 44 have signed the treaty and 18 have ratified it. India, Pakistan and North Korea are the three named states which have not signed the treaty.

If the treaty has not entered into force within three years of opening for signature, namely, by 24 September this year, a conference of states which have ratified it will be convened to consider ways of ensuring its rapid entry into force. It is now clear that this conference will be convened in the autumn. Ireland must ratify the treaty in order to fully participate in the proceedings of this conference.

Under the terms of the treaty states' parties are required to designate a national authority to ensure effective implementation of the treaty and to serve as a national focal point for liaison with the organisation and with the other states' parties. On 25 May the Government decided to designate the Department of Public Enterprise as Ireland's national authority. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland will carry out Ireland's obligations under the treaty. The RPII has responsibility for all aspects of nuclear and radiological safety in Ireland and for implementing Ireland's nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

Last year India and Pakistan conducted tests of nuclear weapons. At the time I made it clear, directly to the representatives of both Governments, that the people and Government of Ireland were deeply dismayed and angered at the tests. Those events clearly demonstrate the urgent need for rapid entry into force of the CTBT. Adherence by Pakistan and India to the CTBT is fundamental to its success. To date neither has signed it, although both have indicated that they may do so. It is my hope that both countries will come to appreciate the strength of international concern and that they will sign and ratify the treaty as soon as possible without conditions.

Let me emphasise that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is a central instrument in preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. By implementing a ban on testing nuclear devices and by establishing an effective mechanism to monitor the ban, it will add to all our security. I commend the motion to the House.

I apologise to the Opposition spokespersons for my departure from the House as I have to attend a function. We are behind schedule due to a prolonged Order of Business.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister will miss a great speech.

Mr. Andrews

I promise the Deputy I will take note of it.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I wish to share time with Deputy Gormley.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am delighted to support the motion approving the terms of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I commend the Minister on the initiative he took, together with seven other Foreign Ministers, in declaring the need for a new agenda in regard to a world free of nuclear weapons.

It is important that we take initiatives, not just in regard to nuclear test ban treaties and related matters, but more generally in the area of international and foreign affairs. People seem to have the impression that those of us who go to Dublin Airport are going on holidays. There is a perception that anything which relates to foreign affairs must be some kind of junket.

We are not only concerned with global occurences in the areas of economic, political and security issues, we also have a view on them which we need to hone. Our reaction to international security events should not be to say "we are caught between a rock and a hard place". We should outline our view on the architecture of European security and explore our beliefs and goals in this area in order to identify a role for ourselves. We tend to keep our heads down because we know our position is untenable. We know that although we might get away with sanctimonious nonsense about Ireland's place in the world here at home when situations such as those in Kosovo and Srebrenica erupt, our position will not be convincing at a meeting of the General Affairs Council. When one is sitting next to a Dutch Minister whose troops are going into the regions, he or she might well say that we should not speak such nonsense at the same time as we take European money. It is very difficult to make a case for Ireland in those circumstances.

It is time we took a more proactive role in foreign affairs issues. The establishment of an Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs indicated renewed thinking in this area.

If we are to build on Frank Aiken's contribution in 1968 to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which was known as the Irish convention at the United Nations for many years before it came into play, we will have to take ourselves more seriously. As a mark of respect, Ireland – which is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world and, given the number of embassies here is growing in stature and importance – was allowed to sign that convention first.

I was struck by the role played by Finland in Kosovo. Admittedly, it is a frontline state and will soon assume the Presidency of the European Union but it still grasped the opportunity with both hands and got involved. It is time that we started to think in those terms. If the objectives set out by the Minister are to be achieved, we cannot continue to say that we will not participate in security arrangements and pander to what is perceived as a good line for the people and mislead them into believing that it would be dangerous to become a member of Partnership for Peace. This approach does not stand up to scrutiny.

The events of the last 12 months have highlighted, all too depressingly, the dangers associated with nuclear proliferation. India and Pakistan conducted public nuclear tests and now face each other in an increasingly tense situation in Kashmir. The more states that acquire nuclear weapons the greater the risk of their eventual use. We must do all we can to avoid such a catastrophe. The Government is to be congratulated on its nuclear non-proliferation initiative.

A deep responsibility rests with the current nuclear weapons states to safeguard their own stocks of weapons and not export nuclear technology and to engage in meaningful nuclear weapons disarmament. There is a suspicion that nuclear weapons states concentrate their efforts on limiting membership to their club rather than engaging in meaningful arms reduction talks.

Fears remain about the safety and security of nuclear weapons held in the former Soviet Union in particular. The EU and American initiative with the Ukraine has made some progress but disturbing reports continue to emanate from Russia in particular about how unpaid nuclear scientists, submarine crews and soldiers might earn a living. Ireland should raise as a matter of priority in the European Union the need to agree aid to Russia targeted at ensuring the safety and security of its nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons facilities. We may at some point reach the stage where aid will be traded for the destruction of weapons, where for every weapon destroyed in Russia a similar weapon will be destroyed in the United States. If our non-proliferation initiative is to advance, we must be creative in coming up with proposals such as an aid programme to Russia in EU, UN and other international fora.

I repeat my call for Ireland's immediate membership of Partnership for Peace and the appointment of an Irish ambassador to NATO. I can think of few more relevant bodies at which to raise the issue of nuclear disarmament than the Councils of NATO, of which three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are members. There are people who will say that, for this reason, we should not be associated with them in Partnership for Peace. This is nonsense. We are already associated with some of them through our full membership of the European Union. We cannot pretend that NATO does not exist. We have to work out our relationship with it. We are in the process of working out our relationship with Northern Ireland which has been part of NATO since 1949. This has to encompass the future security relationship between these islands. Partnership for Peace presents us with an ideal opportunity to co-operate in areas of our choice. We should not turn our backs on those with whom we live on this island and say we cannot associate with them in any circumstances. That does not stand up to fair analysis.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to support the motion. Are there any proposals to strengthen the initiative taken with the other six Foreign Ministers? It shows that Ireland can play a significant role. The more pro-active we are in this area, the better it will be for our reputation and the security of our children and of the world.

Mr. Gormley

I thank Deputy Mitchell for sharing his time with me.

While the Green Party welcomes this initiative, we believe that our standing and credibility in this area have been severely undermined by our proposed participation in Partnership for Peace. In Cologne last week Ireland endorsed the first moves towards the formation of a European army. If that is the case, we are now aligned to powers which use nuclear weapons. The Western European Union is committed to the first use of such weapons. This means that we now have little credibility on the world stage. We can have all the pious aspirations we like but they count for nothing. We have been silenced. It is time the people were given an opportunity to decide on the important question of Partnership for Peace, as promised by the Taoiseach in opposition. It has now, conveniently, been put to one side.

This matter entails far more than tests and experiments. In Kosovo there was the use of uranium-tipped shells which will cause untold damage for generations. They were also used in Iraq. The Government was prepared to stand back and let this happen. Why did we not speak out? The Western European Union is the European leg of NATO. It is hypocritical of parties in this House to say, on the one hand, that they are opposed to nuclear weapons and, on the other, that they support these nuclear alliances. This does not stand up to scrutiny.

I asked the Taoiseach in the House yesterday to define the action of NATO in Kosovo. Was it a war or peace enforcement? He could not answer the question. Perhaps, he did not want to. He is in denial on the question of Ireland's neutrality. It is clear from the Cologne conference that neutrality is being steadily eroded because of the Amsterdam Treaty, particularly Article J.7.2. The Green Party warned about this, but it was ignored and accused of scaremongering. It now seems peace enforcement and crisis management mean we can become involved in these kinds of conflicts and there is no doubt we will be involved in such conflicts in the future. This means Ireland is now fully aligned with these nuclear powers.

The situation regarding Sellafield is similar. The Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob, is currently involved in the OSPAR negotiations in Holland. Why has the Government adopted a softly, softly approach to the issue of reprocessing? It is fine to call for the elimination of technetium 99, as we have done. However, 40 other radionuclides are entering the Irish Sea as a result of reprocessing which is a fundamental part of the nuclear industry. Successive Governments have adopted this kind of approach whereby they do not want to offend the British too much in the hope that they will get something from negotiations. Scandinavian countries, who are not as affected by this issue as Ireland, have taken a different stance and have insisted on an end to emissions into the Irish Sea. Why is this the case? I suspect it is due to the alignments in which we are now involved. This is regrettable and most Irish people will be appalled by it.

While I welcome this initiative, it is clear the people need to be fully informed of the consequences of Partnership for Peace. PfP is a stepping stone towards NATO which is based on nuclear weapons, to which the majority of Irish people are opposed.

Proinsias De Rossa

I welcome this motion approving the terms of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which will enable Ireland to ratify the treaty and deposit the instruments of ratification. It is almost three years since the treaty was opened for ratification in September 1996. Ireland was one of the first countries to sign up, but it is unfortunate it has taken so long for the necessary motion of approval to be brought before the Dáil. Clearly, there have been delays on the part of many countries in ratifying the treaty as it has not yet entered into force. Under its terms it will not enter into force until ratified by 44 named countries identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as hav ing either a civil or military nuclear capability. Ireland is not one of these countries. As the treaty has not been ratified by the required number of countries, a conference of member states will be held in the autumn to consider ways of speeding up its entry into force. I hope Ireland will use its influence to ensure the treaty enters into force without further delay.

The treaty prohibits the carrying out, participation in or provision of assistance to a nuclear weapons test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion. While nuclear tests are not as prevalent as in the 1950s and 1960s, they remain a problem. India, Pakistan and China have conducted tests in recent years and it is only a few years since France, an EU partner, carried out nuclear tests in the Pacific. Since 1970, more than 75,000 nuclear weapons have been deployed and the world has seen almost 600 nuclear tests, the vast majority of which were carried out by the so-called "great powers". Thousands of people have been dispossessed of their environmental heritage by nuclear tests. Whole islands in the South Pacific, used as a nuclear playground by France and the United States, have been reduced to environmental wastelands. People have been forced to leave their homes and are still living in nuclear exile two generations later. The issue of nuclear test victims should also be placed on the international agenda and I would like Ireland to take a lead in the demand for compensation.

Ireland has a fairly honourable role in highlighting the dangers of nuclear weapons and seeking to limit their proliferation. In June 1998 the Government announced that it was joining a number of other countries to launch an initiative aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and the elimination of those already in existence. At the time I stated it was particularly positive to see Ireland joining other EU and non-EU countries who shared our concern about the continuing threat posed by nuclear weapons. This initiative shows that, notwithstanding the development of a common foreign policy in the EU, it is still possible for an Irish Government to take initiatives on foreign policy issues, provided there is the political will to do so.

I particularly welcomed the fact that the initiative was directed at existing nuclear weapons as well as those being developed by "new" countries. While the recent nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan focused attention on the proliferation of nuclear weapons, by far the greatest threat to global safety remains the huge arsenals of nuclear weapons held by the big powers. Following the end of the Cold War, the case for disposing of these lethal weapons is more compelling than ever.

An Irish initiative was largely responsible for the conclusion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty almost 40 years ago. That treaty had some success in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, but it has not stopped those countries which are determined to secure these weapons. As we approach the millennium it is an appropriate time to launch another initiative aimed at freeing the world from the awful threat posed by these weapons of mass destruction.

Much of the attention in recent years has focused on the need to prevent nuclear weapons failing into the hands of "new" countries. However, we must get away from the attitude that nuclear weapons are somehow acceptable in certain hands but not in others. I would prefer to have a Bill Clinton or a Tony Blair controlling nuclear weapons than a Saddam Hussein or a Slobodan Milosevic. However, I would prefer if none of them had such weapons.

The world has only once seen the use of nuclear weapons. The weapons used against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small by modern standards, but we saw enough of their destructive power to oblige us all to ensure they will never again be used. The most effective way of achieving this is to ensure no such weapons exist. This should be the primary aim of Irish policy concerning nuclear weapons.

A number of points were made during the debate concerning Partnership for Peace and NATO which I would like to address. The Government's document on Partnership for Peace provides useful information. However, it is extraordinary that the document does not attempt to define or outline NATO itself. Given that what is being proposed in terms of joining PfP is that Ireland will have an association agreement with NATO, I would have thought that the least that would have been done was that the treaty which established NATO would have been included as one of the documents in the explanatory guide provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I have done as much reading as possible regarding the development of NATO and it is important that we have a genuine and open debate on that organisation – EU security, the context in which PfP is located in its association with NATO, and the role, if any, NATO will play in European security and defence. It is clear from NATO's documentation that it sees itself as part of the security architecture of Europe as a continent and of the EU. On page 10 of a document called US Foreign Policy Agenda, published to mark NATO's 50th anniversary, there is an article by Admiral Harold W. Gehman, Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, entitled “Transforming NATO's Defence Capabilities for the 21st Century”.

According to the blurb, he is in a unique position to evaluate the new dangers NATO faces, including "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, increases in the lethality of terrorism and non-state sponsored adventurism". In the course of the article, he emphasises:

the three pillars of the Alliance – common defence, nuclear deterrence and the transatlantic link – are and must remain the underpinnings of our efforts. They represent the core policies that made our Alliance so successful in the past and are critical for our success in the future".

Given that commitment to nuclear deterrence by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which was confirmed in the revised treaty adopted in April at the summit held to mark its 50th anniversary, it would make sense for the Government when making its case for joining the Partnership for Peace, which is variously described as the outreach of NATO or an annexe or waiting room for joining NATO, to at least explain the nature of NATO today, its objectives, how it sees itself and how Ireland sees it in the context of European security. To pretend, as some do, that joining Partnership for Peace has no wide-ranging implications for Irish foreign policy is to mislead the public.

I do not take the option, as some do, of claiming that joining the Partnership for Peace would be the end of the world as we know it. Partnership for Peace is, in itself, a relatively benign organisation, if it can be described as an organisation, in terms of the tasks it sets itself. However, it is clearly part of the structures which the United States and member states of the European Union, particularly Britain, envisage evolving for the future security of Europe. To pretend, as the Irish Government appears to, that all Ireland is doing is ensuring the interoperability of its armed forces with the forces of other countries which might participate in peacekeeping with Ireland at various points in the future, is to mislead.

Deputy Gormley implied that any association whatsoever with NATO means the death of Irish neutrality. That is an overstatement of the facts. Our troops are participating in SFOR in Bosnia under a United Nations mandate which gave NATO command of the effort. As a Member of this House and a then member of the Government, I supported that development. I did not regard it as an infringement of Irish neutrality. We must distinguish between the overstatements and fears of some people with regard to Irish neutrality, the evolution taking place in Irish foreign policy and the definition of Irish neutrality. It is being redefined before our eyes. Unfortunately, it is being defined by sleight of hand rather than openly in the context of an open debate. I appeal to the Government to take courage and engage in the debate about the nature of Irish neutrality, the role and place of Ireland in the security and defence of the European Union, how that connects with NATO and what role NATO will have in the future.

Given today's debate about the test ban treaty, the commitment of the Government to denuclearisation, the abolition of nuclear weapons, and the reconfirmed commitment of NATO to nuclear deterrence, there appears to be a real conflict between Ireland's declared objectives and principles and the proposal to become more closely aligned or associated with NATO through Partnership for Peace. That conflict of principle and action must be teased out.

Attention should also be drawn to a world court decision in 1996 which found that nuclear weapons or the threat or use of nuclear weapons was contrary to the rule of international law. The declaration of the retention of nuclear weapons as a deterrent by NATO appears to be an implied threat of their use. It appears, therefore, that this article of the NATO treaty is in conflict with the world court decision on the legality of nuclear weapons.

The Government should let us know where it stands in relation to the world court decision. Does it intend to take up that decision and use it in its armoury, if one can use that term, in its arguments for the abolition of nuclear weapons? In the negotiations which it is determined to pursue with NATO in relation to Partnership for Peace what will it say about NATO's declared intention to retain nuclear weapons as a deterrent?

Prior to the last general election, Fianna Fáil made a solemn promise that it would hold a referendum if there was any intention to join Partnership for Peace. As soon as it was in Government it abandoned its promise. However, the Taoiseach said in the Dáil that Fianna Fáil would seek a renewed mandate in the European elections. Is Fianna Fáil sticking by that statement given that the number of seats it won in those elections decreased from seven to six? Can I take it, therefore, that it regards the decision to seek a new mandate on the basis of the European elections as a foolish one, which I believe it was? One cannot claim to have a mandate in relation to Partnership for Peace on the basis of a European election. The Partnership for Peace has nothing to do with the European Union as an institution. However, given that this was Fianna Fáil's declared intention, can we take it that the party will refer back to the people and seek their agreement or otherwise in a plebiscite on the intention to join Partnership for Peace?

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. N. O'Keeffe)

I thank the Deputies for supporting the motion. It is gratifying to see that level of agreement on such an important treaty.

I wish to deal with some of the points raised during the debate. Participation in Partnership for Peace in no way commits Ireland to the nuclear deterrence doctrine held by NATO. Deputies will be aware that several other countries which share Ireland's position on nuclear disarmament, notably Sweden, our co-sponsor in the new agenda initiative, already participate in PfP. Our position on nuclear disarmament and proliferation will not change as a result of our participation in PfP.

Legislation has been drafted to give full effect to the treaty. This legislation will, for example, put a clear prohibition on nuclear test explosions and specify the penal sanctions for participation in such tests.