Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 14 Jul 1995

Vol. 144 No. 11

French Nuclear Testing: Statements.

Mr. Manning

It is with great regret, and in my own case considerable sadness, that we are moved to debate this issue in response to requests from all sides of the House. Bastille Day should be a day of happiness. On St. Patrick's Day people around the world wish this country well and express their goodwill towards us and on Bastille Day people who value France should have the opportunity to do likewise. Today however, a dark cloud hangs over Bastille Day which is being celebrated in a mood of bitterness in many parts of the world.

I say this as a Francophile. France is a country I love. I respect its culture, enjoy its food, appreciate its wines and admire its people. I regard France as a valuable ally and good friend of this country in the European Union. There is a rapport between our two countries, not least because of a strong mutual suspicion of the island that lies between us. All parties have found that in the European Parliament and elsewhere it has been easy to strike up a good relationship with France. Their view of the world is often closer to ours than the Anglo-Saxon view. It is from this position of wishing France well that I approached today's discussion.

I asked myself why France should behave as it has. I know that defence and security are high on any French agenda and we all know why. France has twice been invaded and suffered occupation. France has had the nightmare of seeing its defences collapse in a matter of days with the invasion of Germany in 1940. Every French Government since, and especially since the time of Charles De Gaulle, has had an obsession with security and France's absolute need to have its own independent deterrent force. I understand and appreciate all of that but, having made every possible allowance, I can see no possible justification for the unilateral resumption of nuclear testing.

The arguments put forward by French spokespersons and Ministers have lacked conviction and have been contradictory and empty of any real content. President Chirac's first major act since his election has been dangerous and wrong and was carried out in a very brutal way. It has been done in defiance of friendly opinion across Europe and the wider world and in defiance of the strongly expressed views of two of the most peaceable and civilised Governments in the world.

We all have reason to be grateful to the Governments of Australia and New Zealand for their work over the years in helping to maintain a civilised world order. These two countries have expressed, in a proper and reasonable way, their abhorrence of what France is doing. Their protests have been brushed aside in a cavalier and arrogant manner. It is the way in which the legitimate protest of two peaceable civilised countries, Australia and New Zealand, is being treated which should ring the loudest bells. The arrogance underlying this is breathtaking and the insensitivity is staggering.

This brings me to the second point, the seizure of the Rainbow Warrior. What happened may strictly speaking have been legal but it certainly lacked any moral justification whatsoever. It was done in a brutal way and it brought to mind memories of earlier French aggression against the Rainbow Warrior I, the boarding of that vessel, the attempt to sink it and the murders committed by French personnel at that time. There is a very murky side to the whole area of French security. We saw it in the past and we are seeing it again today.

It is not yet too late for President Chirac to listen to the voices being raised against what he is doing. These are not the voices of cranks, faddists or single issue people. These are voices being raised in virtually every parliament in the world. They are opinions being expressed out of concern and, in our case, with great sadness because of the high regard, respect and affection we have for France and its people. I call upon the French Government in the strongest possible terms to listen to what its friends are saying, to reconsider and reverse its decision.

Mr. Daly

The widespread anger and dismay throughout the international community at the decision of the French Government to resume nuclear testing in the south Pacific does not appear to be reflected by the political leaders, especially the leaders of the major political and economic powers. One might well ask what influence, if any, a debate such as this can have in bringing pressure to bear on the French President. One can only hope that the international outrage generated by the actions of Greenpeace in regard to the Shell company's plans to sink the disused oil rig which resulted in the scrapping of those plans will give us some hope that small nations such as ours, in unison with the small nations and islands in the South Pacific, may force President Chirac and the French Government to change their minds and attitudes and abandon this inexplicable decision.

I mentioned the failure of the other member states in the G7 to bring pressure on the French Government to change their attitude in this regard. At a press conference following a recent meeting of the G7 in Halifax President Chirac was asked whether anyone had talked to him about the French nuclear tests. The President said that subject had not been discussed either in public session or private conversation. When asked about this matter in relation to the Japanese he mentioned that he had discussed this matter with the Japanese Prime Minister and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs but again he was quite adamant that he would not change his mind.

At the same press conference a journalist mentioned that a South Pacific delegation led by the Australians would arrive in Paris on the following Monday to try to get the French Government to go back on its decision on nuclear tests. He was asked whether there was any chance that he would reconsider that decision or change his attitude. The President was adamant. He said that the South Pacific delegation would naturally be received with all the necessary courtesy and that they would be heard but that his decision was totally irrevocable.

The President was asked whether he could confirm how many of his colleagues had raised the question of nuclear tests while in Halifax and whether he was worried about the bad image this would give to France and to himself in particular. He said that while he personally respected the strong feelings including those currently being expressed he repeated that they would not make him change his mind. The President was also adamant that other member states of the G7, the most powerful states in the world, did not raise this issue with him. This raises the question of the sincerity of the protests which are being made and whether or not governments are reflecting the widespread anger and revolt felt throughout the international community at this decision.

The decision to resume nuclear testing which was announced by France on 13 June was not entirely unexpected. President Chirac had opposed the moratorium on testing introduced by President Mitterrand in 1992. In the presidential election campaign he had pledged to be guided by the expert advice of the military on matters of testing and his own Defence Minister had announced on 6 June that an expert committee had recommended the resumption of nuclear testing.

The French decision, together with the Chinese test of 15 May, has again raised the question of the sincerity of the commitments made by both countries at the recent Nuclear Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference which was held on 11 May. The states party to the NPT agreed without a vote to extend the treaty indefinitely, to strengthen the process for review of implementation and, importantly, they also agreed a set of principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. It was stated that, pending entry into force of a comprehensive test ban treaty, the nuclear weapon states would exercise utmost restraint. The French decision is flying in the face of the conference of 11 May and is abandoning the commitments given at that conference as late as 11 May 1995.

Successive Irish Governments have called for an end to nuclear testing everywhere for all time. They have held that the end to the development of nuclear weapons is the obvious first step in moving towards a complete elimination of this whole category of weapons. They have consistently advocated the conclusion of a test ban treaty, negotiation of which for the first time was supported by the entire international community at the UN General Assembly of 1993. Since then the unilateral moratorium on testing which had been observed by France, the USA, Russia and the UK for the past two to three years has been important in securing and sustaining the political momentum to conclude the test ban treaty negotiations.

Irish Governments have stressed the need for a binding international agreement that will ban all tests for all time. No commonsense individual believes that further tests can do anything to advance the conclusion of a test ban treaty. Rather than advancing this treaty these tests will jeopardise the whole process. Is this really what France wants? The European Union member states are guilty of the same lack of interest as the G7 states in their failure to raise this issue with France. While the Tánaiste raised the issue with the French Foreign Minister on 26 June in Cannes and expressed the Government's regret at the French Government decision, he failed to bring the matter up at the Council. Raising these issues over a cup of coffee or a glass of wine is not the way to deal with these matters.

It is not good enough that we should receive a short statement from our Tánaiste setting out Ireland's objection to this, but that he fails to raise it at important meetings like the Cannes summit or indeed at Foreign Affairs Council meetings. This is a very poor performance when compared with the leadership we got from previous Irish Governments. The late Frank Aiken as Minister for Foreign Affairs championed the cause of a nuclear test ban treaty which would eliminate the menace of nuclear armaments.

In the short time at our disposal it is not possible to deal adequately with this matter but the Government should, as a matter of urgency, give a lead. In less that one year we will take over the presidency of the European Union. Ireland now holds a highly respected position in the institutions of the Community and it is imperative that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach make immediate contact with President Chirac. Such action would be far more positive than the invitation we received today from the Minister for Social Welfare, Proinsias De Rossa, who is holding some kind of matineé or teddy bear's picnic of hypocrisy in Buswell's Hotel. The Minister for Social Welfare has issued all with an invitation to attend some jamboree. That is not the kind of action we need from the Government on this issue. I call on the Taoiseach to meet President Chirac and make some positive representation on this issue to stop this madness.

Mr. Sherlock

It is appalling that a representative of the Fianna Fáil Party should use this debate for political purposes.

Mr. Doyle

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sherlock

It shows the level to which that party has been reduced.

Mr. Daly

What about this circular we received today? It is a charade and a whitewash.

Mr. Sherlock

Recently I was privileged to welcome 40 children from Chernobyl to Mallow in north County Cork. These children had been robbed or their health, childhood and future by the Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl Children's Project, and Adi Roche in particular, has done marvellous work to ensure that these children experience some time in a clean environment in Cork and elsewhere. However, many of the children are terminally ill and the best we can do is to alleviate their symptoms.

Each time a nuclear test is carried out there is a danger that we will create more Chernobyl children. I do not want anyone in Mallow to have to welcome a children's project from Mururoa in the future. The French have again decided to turn the South Pacific into a nuclear playground. They have turned a deaf ear to protests from the international community, environmental organisations and the residents of French Polynesia — whose livelihoods, and ultimately their lives, are under threat.

Last weekend the French compounded their intransigence by perpetrating an act of brazen piracy against the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior II, ten years after French commandos sank Rainbow Warrior I and killed a Greenpeace photographer. Their decision to resume nuclear testing is particularly cynical in view of the proposed comprehensive test ban treaty due to be concluded next year. They are, in effect, attempting to come in under the ropes in advance of that treaty. It is vital that the international community maintain and increase pressure on the French Government in the period before the proposed resumption of testing in September.

I am aware that we are not dealing with the Bosnian issue at present, but I want to put on record that the atrocities perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs, and the complete failure of the United Nations to protect the people involved, are simply shocking.

Mr. Dardis

It is a terrible pity to mark France's national day with a condemnation of that country's decision to resume nuclear testing in the Pacific and the boarding of the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior II.

On 15 June this House registered its disapproval of the decision to resume testing. We regard this decision as a totally unnecessary, provocative, selfish and stupid one. I still fail to understand why the French took this decision in the first place, other than for domestic political reasons. Following completion of its programme of eight small nuclear tests — use of the word "small" being a contradiction in terms — President Chirac has stated that "France has every intention of signing a complete test ban treaty without reserve in the autumn of 1996.". Why is it necessary, therefore, to resume testing if the French have promised to complete the test ban treaty? My astonishment about the decision is increased by the knowledge that these tests can now be carried out by way of computer simulation. There is no need to carry them out in reality. Why is it necessary to carry out these tests?

The French had their own moratorium on testing since 1992 which has now been abandoned. France is giving an invitation to far more belligerent countries around the world to carry on testing. There are huge environmental implications for people living in the Pacific region but there are also very serious implications for the European Union. The intergovernmental conference will be held in Ireland in 1996 and one of its tasks will be to complete the Maastricht Treaty which contains a clause that member states should develop a common foreign policy. This could ultimately lead to a common defence policy. I cannot foresee any circumstances where it might be possible to develop a common foreign policy, much less a common defence policy, while the French are determined to carry out nuclear testing. As a result of this ill-advised action, there will be real difficulty in reaching agreement on these important issues.

It was sad that the French authorities marked the tenth anniversary of the sinking of Rainbow Warrior I in Auckland, which caused loss of life, by boarding Rainbow Warrior II in the Pacific. Television pictures of this event were quite horrifying. The ship was rammed, which caused serious potential for loss of life, tear gas was thrown onto the bridge and it was boarded by French commandos. I question what basis there is in international law for doing this. It struck me as being an act of piracy.

I hope that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government will continue to exert pressure at diplomatic level to convince the French how ill-advised their decision has been. It is correct that people should not attend today's function at the French Embassy. I have no difficulty with the event organised by Democratic Left. It is ironic to read in this morning's newspapers that police in Paris urged motorists to stay at home or take public transport during the Bastille Day weekend to prevent high pollution levels. French concerns about their domestic environment contrast markedly with their total lack of concern about the global one. It is curious that they should take such a view of the potential for exhaust fumes to cause environmental damage in their own country, and not take due regard of the consequences of nuclear pollution to countries in the Pacific region.

Mr. Doyle

On Saturday last I received an invitation from Greenpeace to attend a demonstration it was organising. I do not attend such demonstrations in a light-hearted manner. The last Greenpeace demonstration I attended was in Sellafield — on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the fire which took place there — in protest against the actions of British Nuclear Fuels.

I attended a very peaceful demonstration outside the French Embassy on Ailesbury Road last Sunday at which all political parties were represented. The demonstration was in protest against France's proposed resumption of nuclear testing in the South Pacific. It was also to remember the tenth anniversary of the death of Fernando Pereira, a crew member of Rainbow Warrior I who lost his life when the ship was bombed in Auckland harbour. Some moving speeches were made at that demonstration. Greenpeace informed us that our message of protest and sympathy would be communicated to Rainbow Warrior II which was in the South Pacific at that time. Less than two hours later, Irish time, we were horrified to learn that French naval commandos had boarded Rainbow Warrior II during the craft's protest voyage which, as I said, was timed to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the sinking of its predecessor by French agents in New Zealand. I am sure the House would share my horror at that cynical action on their part.

I would like to reiterate what the Leader of the House said about France and the French. I love France and have visited it each year for the past 40 years. I enjoy the country, its people and its food. However, I must protest at the insensitivity of the French in this instance. I join with the Tánaiste in calling the action of the French a total violation against the peace ship. I call on the French Government to cease nuclear testing in the South Pacific. There is no logic in the arguments they have made in support of their action.

Mr. Roche

Outside the Chamber there is a portrait of Wolfe Tone, the father of Irish Republicanism. It shows him in the uniform of the quarter master general of Napoleon's army. In the background the fleet is amassing and at anchor in Le Harve provisioning for its journey to Ireland. The connections between the two nations are inextricable. France has always been a friend of Ireland and, I believe, Ireland has always been a friend of France. Like Senator Manning, I am a Francophile and I make no apologies for that. I love France, the civilisation, the people, the food, the joie de vivre and everything that stands for France.

I admire French single-mindedness in most issues, particularly when it comes to taking a political or a diplomatic stance. They are never fearful to argue a case. I admire their contribution to the thinking of civilised nations, to republicanism and to the evolutionary history of the world and, in particular, their contribution to elevating the importance of the individual.

Like many people in Ireland, I find it difficult to understand how a nation which has contributed so much to the civilisation of the world can find itself so single-mindedly adhering to a policy which is indefensible. If nuclear testing is accepted in this case, how can we argue with China, Pakistan, Iraq and other nations which seem to be infected with nuclear madness that they do not have the right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons and test these obscenities? We all know that each time a nuclear weapon explodes it means death for somebody because on each occasion there has been nuclear testing, nuclear pollution enters the atmosphere and the food stream. It destroys not only the ecosystem in the immediate vicinity but because of the delicate nature of this planet, it destroy us all.

As a student of European history, like Senator Manning, I understand the French preoccupation with an independent defence policy and its natural national preoccupation with controlling weapons of defence. I understand the pain the French feel as a result of recent European history. Because I, and my children, visit and holiday in France, I understand their determination that history will never repeat itself. However, I cannot understand that a nation which has played such a central and civilising role in the history of humanity can be so single-mindedly determined to pursue in the face of the requests and entreaties of the civilised world a course of action which is totally indefensible.

Perhaps our entreaties will fall on deaf ears and will not be recorded in France. There is no doubt in my mind that the people in the Quay d'Orsay or in the Elysée Palace will not spend too much time pouring over the debates of Seanad Éireann. However, it is proper and appropriate that, on this day above all, Seanad Éireann, the Upper House of the Parliament of a nation which is closely and inextricably bound with France, should call on the French people to have sense, not to be obdurate and to be accommodating, as they have been, to the views of humanity.

Sitting suspend at 12.55 p.m. and resumed at 1.25 p.m.