asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's policy on nuclear disarmament; and whether they support in particular a freeze on the testing, deployment and production of nuclear weapons.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Nuclear Disarmament Policy.
15.
I am glad of the opportunity to state the essential elements in the Government's policy on disarmament:
Firstly, the Government do not accept that lasting peace and security can be built on reliance on nuclear weapons.
Secondly, we believe, as I stated recently at the United Nations, that "the prevention of nuclear war is the unique challenge of our time".
For these reasons Ireland will continue to emphasise the priority of nuclear disarmament at those multilateral bodies where we are represented in particular at the United Nations.
In the context of the ongoing arms control negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the reduction of strategic weapons, Ireland, as the Deputy is aware, put forward a proposal at the Second Special Session of the United Nations devoted to Disarmament for a limited negotiated freeze or moratorium on the introduction of such weapons.
In addition, at the regular Session of the General Assembly in 1982 Ireland voted in favour of resolutions calling for a more comprehensive approach to the freezing of nuclear weapons, including testing, production and deployment. In the General Assembly debate on this issue the Irish delegation, noted that our proposal had been modest in its scope and aims in the hope that it would be initially more acceptable and that could later be extended. The underlying aim of our approach was, however, similar to these broader proposals in calling upon both sides in the present nuclear competition to halt the development and deployment of new weapons in order to create a better climate for the negotiations on reductions which are so urgently needed.
It remains the Government's view that a moratorium limited in scope and if necessary limited in duration could help the negotiations to proceed under more favourable conditions.
Is the Minister aware that on the day before we left office last year Ireland voted for a resolution at the United Nations calling on the US and the Soviet Union to declare an immediate ban on the production and deployment of nuclear weapons and delivery service? Will the Government vote for any similar motion at the United Nations this year? Could the Minister let us know why, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, he omitted from his United Nations speech a call for a freeze on the production and deployment of nuclear weapons?
I am aware that that happened last year and, of course, I would support any such motion in the future. I am sure the Deputy will understand from his experience that the United Nations speeches have of necessity to be somewhat telescoped because of the many problems that have to be covered. I made a very strong plea in my United Nations speech to both sides to move towards disarmament. I made a similar plea in Madrid, when I spoke there earlier that month. In the interests of avoiding further escalation of the arms race, avoiding the situation whereby the super powers seem to be moving into frozen positions where they could not negotiate, I called for a top summit meeting between the leaders of both super powers. I do not think anybody in the UN or anywhere else is in any doubt as to where the Government stand about disarmament and our concern to stress to these multinational bodies on which we are represented the importance we place on the priority given to nuclear disarmament. We have done that. I did it in the UN and in Madrid and another opportunity will arise in Stockholm after Christmas which I will take to do so again there.
Is the Minister aware of the anxiety of the people in Europe at the deployment of Pershing and Cruisemissiles and the subsequent escalation of the deployment by the Soviet Union of SS20 missiles in Eastern Europe? Does he support the aim of the European Peace Movement?
I am aware of the concern felt by the people in the countries in which deployment is to take place, but it is a matter for the governments of those countries to allay the fears of their members. The countries in question evidently feel that a necessary part of bringing about real dialogue and an attempt to renegotiate on disarmament is that they should present the opportunity for these missiles to be deployed in their territory. It would be presumptuous of me to lecture them in that regard.
Has the Minister made no specific representations to the USA concerning the siting of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe and does he consider that it would be important for Ireland to make representations on this matter?
We would be concerned that both super powers would, first of all, stop the escalation in the arms race and then commence possible disarmament; but that should apply to both sides. As I said in my UN speech, I would be concerned that they should get together around the table, because it appears that until there is a sincere meeting at the very highest level from which there can be some results the climate for unwinding the arms race will not be present. At the same time I am glad the Geneva talks have resumed and appear to be continuing. However, there are two sides in this and each appears to think that any movement on the other side will unbalance the holding of nuclear weapons. Again, as I said in my statement, I do not accept that lasting peace and security can be built on a reliance on nuclear weapons. There are other ways and I hope that in this regard both super powers would accept that point of view, which I think is held sincerely by most of the countries and peoples in the world, and would come to their senses and sit down and talk about a way of unwinding the whole situation.
Uimhir 16. We cannot be at this all day. I have been generous in this.
I am looking for a reply to a supplementary question and it is very important.
It is so important that we could discuss it for a fortnight, but that is not the way Question Time works.
I appreciate that, but I ask the Minister, acting as he is on behalf of one of the three neutral western European nations, if he accepts that, like Sweden and Switzerland, he has obligations to press at the EEC and the Council of Ministers for the European Peace Movement and the objectives of that movement within Europe.
Certainly I accept that, as a Foreign Minister of a neutral, free country, I have an obligation to make my voice heard in the concern we feel about the arms race that is at present going on, particularly the nuclear arms race and the potential danger this poses for the whole world. As I said in my reply, I will take any opportunity I will get to point out to both sides that they are risking the whole world for what I believe is not a sound basis for a lasting peace.
Uimhir 16.