Vol. 599 No. 2
63 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Irish and European position towards the existing situation which pertains in North Korea with regard to the threat of nuclear weapons being developed in that country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7734/05]
135 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s views on recent statements from North Korea relating to its nuclear capability and the withdrawal from talks by that country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7622/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 63 and 135 together.
The issue of the nuclear programme of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DPRK, is kept under close and regular scrutiny within the European Union. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has the responsibility of carrying out inspections of nuclear and related facilities under the safeguards agreements which are mandatory for states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, which the DPRK ratified in 1985. However, following the expulsion of the IAEA inspectors on 31 December 2002, the agency has been unable to draw conclusions regarding the nuclear activities in that country.
In January 2003, the DPRK went further and announced its withdrawal from the NPT. However, the IAEA board of governors, in a resolution of February 2003, confirmed that the agency's safeguards agreement with the DPRK remained binding and in force. It called upon the DPRK to remedy its non-compliance by taking all steps deemed necessary by the agency.
At the most recent meeting of the IAEA annual general conference in September 2004, a further resolution noted with concern the repeated official DPRK statements declaring its intention to build up a nuclear deterrent force. This resolution urged the DPRK to reconsider those actions and announcements and to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons programme in a prompt, transparent, verifiable and irreversible manner.
At the same meeting, the European Union expressed its concern that the IAEA had not been able to carry out its verification activities and, therefore, was not in a position to confirm that nuclear material had not been diverted to non-peaceful uses. The EU called for the DPRK's compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA and full implementation of all the required safeguard measures, including the return of IAEA inspectors.
The issue of the DPRK's nuclear programme is also being addressed within the framework of the six-party talks process. This involves China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States. Three rounds of talks have taken place since the process was initiated in 2003. However, on 10 February last, the DPRK announced that it has produced and now possesses nuclear weapons and that it is to suspend its participation in the six-party talks for an indefinite period. The international community has expressed serious concern at these developments and strenuous diplomatic efforts to convince the DPRK to return to the talks process are under way.
The DPRK was the subject of discussion most recently at last week's meeting of the IAEA board of governors in Vienna. Here, the EU strongly condemned the DPRK's announcement of 10 February last and again urged it to completely dismantle any nuclear weapons programme in a prompt manner. The EU also indicated its support for the efforts of the IAEA director general to enter into dialogue with the DPRK, with a view to restoring the verification role of the IAEA.
In a subsequent statement issued on 3 March, the IAEA board of governors expressed serious concern over the DPRK statement of 10 February and made clear that the DPRK nuclear issue was a serious challenge to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, as well as to the peace and stability of north-east Asia. The board emphasised the importance of continued dialogue to achieve a peaceful and comprehensive solution of the DPRK issue and in this regard said it attached great importance to the crucial role played by the six-party talks. The board strongly encouraged all parties to redouble their efforts to facilitate a resumption of the six-party talks at an early date and without preconditions.
Ireland, together with its partners in the EU, supports the six-party talks process and urges the DPRK to co-operate with the international community to find a solution to the nuclear issue. While not directly involved in these talks, the EU has availed of every opportunity to confirm the Union's willingness to contribute to the international efforts to move matters forward. The Union has also indicated its readiness to consider enhanced co-operation with the DPRK if the current difficult situation can be resolved in a satisfactory manner.
Is it the Minister's understanding that the non-proliferation agreement involves the reduction in nuclear capacity of those with existing nuclear capacity as well as the prohibition of the extension of nuclear capacity to countries such as the DPRK? I agree with the Minister that such developments could be seriously destabilising to the region. How does the six-nation approach in the case of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea contrast with the approach on, for example, developments in Iran?
It is accepted that the authorities in the DPRK have difficulties regarding the participation of the US in the six-party talks. Regarding Iran, the talks are led by three countries of the EU and the US is supporting the talks and the diplomatic efforts in that respect. That situation is moving along fruitfully. The DPRK situation is somewhat different and more worrying. Talks are taking place. China and the US are engaged in talks in Seoul as we speak. The British Ambassador, as the representative of the EU in the DPRK has made strenuous efforts to get the DPRK authorities back into the six-party talks. Those efforts will continue.
Does the Minister agree with my interpretation of the non-proliferation agreement that it was always the intention that there would be a reduction in existing nuclear capacity?
Yes.
In view of the Minister's statement that the North Korean Government expelled the nuclear inspectorate in 2002, is it not strange that he decided to set up diplomatic relations with that country? How can he justify the decision to set up diplomatic relations with North Korea in those circumstances? I do not understand the Minister's defence of his decision, which was that Ireland had the Presidency of the European Union and was forced to do so. I cannot accept that as a defence. Our foreign policy should be based on our own beliefs and needs. We should not be bounced into arrangements with countries such as North Korea and Burma because of our Presidency of the European Union. How can the Minister justify a decision to set up diplomatic relations with a country that only a short time previously expelled the nuclear inspectorate?
I disagree with the Deputy's "head in the sand" philosophy. There are parameters with which any normal nation must concur. However, I concur with the decision to open diplomatic relations with countries such as Burma and the DPRK on our own terms.
It is the Minister who has his head in the sand.
We had the Presidency of the EU and in that role we had a duty. Perhaps some day the Deputy will have that opportunity, although it will be 2030 and he may be retired by then or Fine Gael may not be in power.
The Minister should not hold his breath.
When a country has the Presidency of the EU it must be able to deal on a one-to-one basis with countries outside its normal sphere of interests. It was decided that it would be better to have diplomatic relations with Burma and the DPRK. When our ambassador to North Korea, who is non-residential and operates from Seoul, met the DPRK authorities he made all the relevant points on issues such as human rights and the non-proliferation treaty on our behalf. He would not have been able to make those points if we did not have diplomatic relations with the DPRK. I do not, therefore, accept the Deputy's "head in the sand" attitude in that regard, and God help Ireland if he is ever in charge of foreign policy.
I do not understand the Minister's schizophrenic attitude to foreign policy. On the one hand he states we must have diplomatic relations in order to discuss issues on which we differ. On the other, the Minister has broken off relations by not proceeding to set up diplomatic links. The Minister cannot have it both ways. I do not understand his line of reasoning. The Government made rash decisions on which the Minister had to rapidly backtrack because of the gross records of those two countries.
In view of the indications previously given by the Burmese authorities regarding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the participation of her party in the National Convention of Burma, and given that we were going to set up relations which would have been of mutual benefit to both countries, what better way is there of getting our point across on the issues in question than by not proceeding with the setting up of those relations?
When we set up diplomatic relations with the DPRK, the situation was not as drastic as it is today. Our ambassador has indicated our views very strongly to the authorities there. I do not, therefore, accept the Deputy's "head in the sand" attitude. I believe in discussion. It is far better for us as a small neutral nation that punches far above its size and that is regarded as an honest broker and respected in most of the corners of the world to be there using our influence. It is better that we should start relations with countries where there are difficulties on human rights issues etc. so that we can at least exert influence at the table in that respect.
The Minister asked me a question. May I answer it?
No. The purpose of Question Time is for Members to ask the Minister questions, not the other way around.
I would not concede anything to such countries until they carried out their promises. The Minister was sold a sucker. It is not the first time the Minister made a bad error.
64 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he raised with the British Prime Minister, at his meeting on 1 February 2005, the jailing of a person (details supplied) and the admission by MI5 that it bugged the Sinn Féin office at Connolly House, Belfast; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3623/05]
As the Deputy is aware, I have pursued both of these issues to the greatest extent possible and appropriate. Raising them again with the British side would not advance either in the absence of further developments of which there have been none. Accordingly, neither of the two matters referred to by the Deputy were raised at the meeting on 1 February 2005.
I am incredulous that these matters were not addressed. Does the Minister recall that the Taoiseach said he raised with the British Government the bugging of the Sinn Féin office at Connolly House and that he limply told the British that it was unhelpful, but that the British authorities did not admit to it at the time? Is the Minister aware that a representative of MI5 admitted to a British House of Commons committee that it had planted the listening devices at the Sinn Féin offices? As I stated, the Taoiseach said the bugging was unhelpful. What response has been received from the British to the issue? Will the Minister note that this took place against the backdrop of the institutions being brought down by the British Government on the back of unproven allegations of republican espionage at Stormont? Does this not, therefore, require a more serious approach by both the Taoiseach and the Minister to this very serious matter, especially taken in conjunction with the British refusal to co-operate with the inquiries of Mr. Justice Barron? I am very disappointed the Minister has not regarded this and the second matter as meritorious of readdress with the British, given that we have received no satisfactory response.
Is the Minister aware of the great hurt and concern caused within the wider Derry community and much further afield by the jailing of the Derry man, Martin Doherty, given that Martin Doherty is the only person ever jailed in connection with the events surrounding the British army killing of 14 people on Bloody Sunday in 1972? Is the Minister aware that Martin Doherty was not in Derry on that day?
I remind the Deputy that supplementary questions are limited to one minute.
I will conclude with this question. The Minister will note that Martin Doherty was released on Friday, but I understand he is subject to further imprisonment. Has this matter been raised with the British and, if so, what was the response? If the Minister's reply is definitive, will he undertake to raise both of these very important matters at the first opportunity?
My officials spoke to Mr. Doherty's solicitor following his imprisonment and were told he would prefer to serve his sentence than have someone intercede on his behalf. My officials met a number of other people in this regard. While there have been fairly serious misgivings about the matter in Derry, it is within the remit of the tribunal and is not one in which we can intervene.
The matter of the bugging device was raised with the British authorities in September and they replied that it was their Government's policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of these types of covert operations. However, as a general point, it would be of concern to me that surveillance of any type would take place, particularly surveillance of Deputies.
It would be of concern to me also. As a Deputy who has been under surveillance throughout my years of elected office and for all the years previously, I could not agree more with the Minister. I hope he is as sincere in that matter as I am. I ask the Minister to address the question I put to him. When he raised the matter last September we did not at the time have a British admission of involvement in the planting of listening devices in the Sinn Féin office in Connolly House in Belfast. That admission has since been made by MI5 at a British House of Commons committee meeting. Surely, in God's name, the Minister must regard that as a very serious matter and meritorious of raising it again with the British authorities. That he has not done so since last September will be a shock to many people, given the seriousness of the matter and the issues surrounding it.
I did not say we did not raise it since September, I said we first raised it in September. On 16 January The Sunday Times reported, as the Deputy said, that the head of MI5 had admitted that British intelligence agents had bugged the building in the fashion he has stated. That matter was again raised with the British authorities through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat. They again responded along similar lines and refused to comment further.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
