I am very glad to have the opportunity today to participate in a briefing on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to seek to answer any questions committee members may have.
I would like to clarify the reference in the documentation to a review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in September. There was no such review in September. The five yearly review conference was held in May and the Minister for Foreign Affairs briefed the committee in June on what had transpired. The next review conference will be held in 2010. However, there were discussions on disarmament and non-proliferation treaty issues in the run-up to the UN world summit in September. Some of the matters covered by the NPT were examined at the time. The focus of those discussions was much broader than the NPT and the countries involved included states which were not a party to the treaty.
It was the Government's hope the summit would send a strong political signal which would help break the deadlock on the most pressing challenges in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Such an outcome would have assisted in the identification of ways to strengthen the global regime and in laying the foundations for concrete steps to be taken to revitalise the NPT between now and the next review cycle due to begin in 2007. Unfortunately, it was not possible to make progress in New York. Ireland worked actively within the European Union in the run-up to the summit to support and strengthen draft texts on disarmament proposed by the President of the General Assembly. Norway also led a small cross-regional group which proposed the use of some positive language. Despite intensive discussions, all of these proposals failed to achieve consensus as the deep divisions evident at the NPT conference once more came to the surface. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs both made clear in their addresses to the United Nations General Assembly in New York their deep disappointment in this respect.
As the Minister indicated to this committee in June, support for the NPT is the Government's highest priority in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation. We have a proud history and strong track record in this area for nearly 50 years, from the days of Frank Aiken's early initiative in the late 1950s. In his address to the NPT review conference in May the Minister noted that our support for the treaty was rooted in the firm conviction that a strong multilateral system and a rules-based international order was the best approach in seeking to preserve international peace and security. For a small country like Ireland, it is the only approach to adopt. However, no rules-based system can be truly effective if the rules are not respected by all.
When he came before the committee in June, the Minister recalled the importance we attached to the fulfilment of the nuclear disarmament obligations set out in Article VI of the NPT and reaffirmed and developed at subsequent NPT conferences. At times there is a tendency in some quarters to place greater emphasis on the non-proliferation obligations of the treaty, as if they should be given greater priority or validity. We have never accepted such an approach. We see disarmament and non-proliferation as mutually reinforcing processes requiring irreversible progress on both fronts. Ultimately, what does not exist cannot proliferate. We have always insisted that the legally binding obligations on states to refrain from the development of nuclear weapons were undertaken in the context of equally legally binding obligations to reduce and eliminate such weapons. Without such agreement, it is doubtful whether the NPT could ever have been negotiated.
In respect of the non-proliferation obligations under the treaty, all non-nuclear weapons state parties are required to conclude safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, which has an inspectorate to verify the accuracy of information supplied and a board of governors which reviews the operation of agreements. There are no such detailed arrangements in respect of the nuclear disarmament obligations, although examination of the implementation of these obligations forms an integral part of the regular review process and is discussed in depth at NPT preparatory committees and review conferences.
Article VI of the NPT reads, "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". This article is the essential foundation for the pursuit of the important objective of nuclear disarmament and we have managed to build on it so as to be more specific on what is a very general statement in the treaty. In 1995, for example, parties agreed at the NPT review conference on a work programme which included the negotiation of treaties banning nuclear testing and the production of fissile material which could be used in nuclear weapons. It also included a commitment that nuclear weapons states would pursue systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally. This outcome enabled state parties to agree to the indefinite extension of the treaty.
At the review conference in 2000 — until now regarded as the high water mark of efforts in this area — state parties agreed to the most substantive and comprehensive final declaration ever agreed at such a conference. The most critical achievement was the incorporation in the outcome document of a set of 13 practical steps which provide a benchmark for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement the disarmament commitment made in Article VI. A central element was the unequivocal undertaking by nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, leading to nuclear disarmament.
There has been progress during the years in the direction of the requirements set by Article VI, as has been acknowledged on occasion. There have been reductions in the numbers of nuclear weapons. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example, has estimated that there were about 38,000 nuclear weapons in global arsenals in 1970, the year in which the treaty came into force. It estimated that the numbers had increased to a peak of 65,000 worldwide by 1986. The number was estimated at approximately 27,000 last year. This is 27,000 too many from our perspective, yet it is a smaller number than the peak number. A treaty banning nuclear testing — the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CTBT — was negotiated in 1996. This treaty has been signed by the five nuclear weapons states, three of which, France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation, have ratified it so far. We have also welcomed the continuing moratorium on nuclear testing which has been observed by all states, as well as the voluntary moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes.
As the Minister made clear in New York, we are concerned, some 15 years after the end of the Cold War, that nuclear weapons are still reaffirmed as central to strategic doctrine for the foreseeable future. There are up to 30,000 nuclear weapons in existence. When we hear reports of plans to develop new nuclear weapons or new rationales for their use, we fear that the taboo on using such weapons will be weakened. These developments are not compatible with the unequivocal undertaking to eliminate nuclear weapons, nor are they helpful in promoting full implementation of the other provisions of the treaty, that is, the non-proliferation side of the bargain. While voluntary moratoriums are welcome, they cannot be a substitute for legally binding obligations in a treaty.
It was in the context of concern that the opportunities provided by the end of the Cold War were not being seized adequately by the nuclear weapons states that Ireland worked with like-minded countries to form, in 1998, a new grouping, the New Agenda Coalition. In addition to Ireland, its members include Sweden, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, Mexico and Brazil. This is a geographically and otherwise diverse group of countries. The New Agenda Coalition has a particular focus on nuclear disarmament and sought to give a lead in injecting fresh thinking and new momentum in this area. It played a pivotal role and was the driving force at the 2000 NPT review conference in respect of the 13 practical steps towards disarmament. Unfortunately, it did not have the same impact last May at the unsuccessful review conference. We are reflecting together on how best to make progress.
Within the European Union Ireland has worked hard to focus attention on the need for implementation of all provisions of the NPT. For the last review conference in May the European Union developed a detailed and positive common position which drew favourable comment from the NGO community and others. It was important because two nuclear weapons states are members of the European Union. Unfortunately, as the Minister stated to members in June, two and a half weeks of the four weeks of the conference were taken up by wrangling over the agenda and organisation of work. There was no agreement on a single substantive recommendation or conclusion.
Most recently, with our partners in the coalition, we submitted a resolution to the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in October and lobbied actively for support. The resolution was passed by a large majority of member states, including a majority of EU member states and several NATO members. Later this week it will be dealt with at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly where we hope it will be passed by a large margin and attract further support. Among its key elements is a reaffirmation of the outcome of the 2000 review conference as the framework for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. The resolution calls on nuclear weapons states to accelerate implementation of the 13 steps.
Another of the New Agenda Coalition's key objectives, the universalisation of the treaty, is also addressed in the resolution. It is the most universal of all the multilateral instruments in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation. Only three of the 91 members of the United Nations, India, Israel and Pakistan, have not signed it. This is a matter of serious concern and the Minister has urged all three to accede unconditionally at an early date. The European Union is also committed to this objective under a common position agreed in November 2003 and for the review conference in May.
The New Agenda Coalition's resolution makes it clear that we are not satisfied with the current position on non-proliferation. While we are concerned at the very slow rate of progress made in the elimination of nuclear weapons, we do not believe this can ever serve as a pretext or justification for others to seek to acquire them. It is for this reason that we share the widespread international concern in respect of the nuclear programmes of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran, both of which have signed and ratified the NPT.
As members know, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea expelled International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in December 2002 and in January 2003 announced its withdrawal from the treaty, the first country ever to do so. It has since claimed it possesses nuclear weapons. The best hope for securing a peaceful solution to this problem lies in the six party talks process involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, South Korea, the Russian Federation, Japan, China and the United States. China has played a leading role, having initiated the process and chaired the rounds of talks that have taken place. On 19 September the parties agreed a joint statement setting out a number of commitments, including the abandonment by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea of all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes and returning to the NPT and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We look forward to the early implementation of these commitments and the establishment of verification arrangements in which the International Atomic Energy Agency could play a useful role.
The position on Iran's nuclear programme has been under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency in recent years and there have been 12 written reports by the agency's director general and several resolutions of its board of governors. The last such resolution, dating from September, found that Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations in regard to its NPT safeguards agreement had constituted non-compliance with its obligations under the agency's statute. This creates a prima facie basis for referring the matter to the Security Council of the United Nations but the board has not yet exercised this option pending further investigation by the agency.
The focus of the International Atomic Energy Agency's investigation is largely on past activities and trying to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of Iran's current nuclear programme. Some aspects of the past programme are far from clear. Efforts are also under way to engage Iran on the future direction of the programme. The so-called E3, that is, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, supported by Javier Solana, have played a leading role and their efforts have been supported by the European Union as a whole and the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors. Negotiations with Iran are suspended following its decision in August to recommence the conversion of uranium, contrary to commitments given to the E3 in the Paris agreement last year.
Last month the General Affairs and External Relations Council reiterated its grave concern at Iran's resumption of uranium conversion activity and urged Iran to implement all measures requested by the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors. The Council underlined the European Union's continued support for a diplomatic solution to international concerns at Iran's nuclear programme and agreed to keep the matter under close review.
One new element which has emerged in recent weeks is a Russian idea that all uranium enrichments in respect of lran's nuclear programme be carried out in Russia and to a lower than weapons grade standard. This is an interesting and potentially fruitful concept. So far Iran has given no signal that such an idea would be acceptable to it but we understand it is still being explored. We welcome all efforts to find a diplomatic solution.
In all of these areas we are motivated by a determination to move towards the world envisaged by the NPT, a world where nuclear weapons have no role and no future. The failure of the last NPT review conference in May to agree a substantive outcome which was underscored by the failure of the summit in September undeniably represents a set-back to this ambition. We need to ensure, however, that we do not give way to the counsels of despair. The challenges we failed to address successfully in May and September remain and will not vanish of their own accord.
We should not forget in these difficult times what the NPT has been able to achieve in the 35 years of its existence. As I stated, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has reported that there is now less than half the number of many nuclear weapons than there was 20 years ago. Perhaps more importantly, since the NPT was signed in 1968 and ratified in 1970, many more countries have given up rather than begun nuclear weapons programmes. In particular, an example was set by South Africa and Ukraine in this regard.
I strongly argue that we do not need a new treaty to address the challenges that confront us. What we need is full implementation of the treaty. As the Minister noted in his meeting with the committee in June, we are firmly of the view that the NPT is now more than ever of tremendous importance to the achievement of international peace and security.
