asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of public concern on the matter, the Government have made or plan to make any representations to the United States concerning the proposal to site Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Siting of Nuclear Weapons in Europe.
14.
The parties to the Geneva negotiations on intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) and strategic, or intercontinental-range, nuclear forces (START) have been made aware of the Government's concern that these negotiations should succeed.
In a general debate statement at the United Nations on 3 October, I said that we shared the concern of the UN Secretary-General at the failure so far to achieve substantial progress in the bilateral negotiations at Geneva, and I emphasised the need for renewed determination on the part of both sides to move these talks forward. In pointing to the need for early progress in the START and INF negotiations, I added that reductions in strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons are clearly indispensable, and I expressed my belief that the success of these negotiations would also have a positive impact on other arms control and disarmament negotiations in which there has been scant progress in recent years. I shall be glad to make a copy of my UN statement available to the Deputy.
The Government's concern about the growth in nuclear forces, including intermediate-range systems, is not of course confined to the weapons of one military alliance. The Minister of State at my Department, in a speech at the Tipperary Festival of Peace on 5 September, referred to the hundreds of SS-20 missiles which, beginning in the mid-seventies, have been targeted on Western Europe by the Soviet Union, when he said: "... The quest for nuclear superiority is a dangerous illusion... and at the regional level the introduction in recent years of new missiles which in turn has evoked a perceived need to match these deployments presents great dangers for peace and reconciliation — in a word—for détente in Europe”.
Would the Minister not accept that the siting of Pershing and Cruise missiles in Western Europe would be an escalation of the arms race and nuclear missiles? For that reason, does he consider that it upsets the equilibrium which exists at present and to which the Minister referred in his speech on the Estimates before the recess? Would he make representations to the USA urging them not to site these missiles in Western Europe?
Negotiations concerning the entire area of arms limitation are proceeding and, in that sense, the Deputy's question is hypothetical. Of course any increase in the nuclear forces now deployed in Europe would be a matter for concern and the Government hope that the parties to the Geneva negotiations — and there are two sides to those negotiations — will show the necessary determination to make these negotiations succeed. In that regard it was distressing to learn in recent statements from President Andropov that there are unhelpful developments taking place in the other alliance.
Would the Minister not agree that the siting of Cruise and Pershing missile bases in Europe as proposed, is opposed by our Government?
The Government are opposed to any escalation of the stock of nuclear weapons and we have made this clear but we are not party to the negotiations. We can only indicate our concern to the parties concerned directly and publicly in statements in the various world fora, which we do and have done consistently.
With reference to making our point of view known on the siting of Pershing and Cruise missiles anywhere in Western Europe which is consistent with our stance in the fora of the nations throughout the world is the Minister in a position to give an explanation why his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, was not present at the recent Athens conference of the EEC where this matter was discussed?
It is not unusual for a Minister not to be present at a meeting of a particular council. That happens from time to time and representation is at senior diplomatic level. The Deputy will be aware of that from his experience in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have no particular knowledge as to why the Minister was absent from the council concerned but I have no doubt that the country's views and position were adequately and well represented there.
On this important issue the Government Minister concerned was at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis although it was his duty to be in Athens to deal with a major matter of world international concern at present. He was the only Foreign Minister missing from the Council of Ministers meeting in Athens which dealt with this matter.
I thought the Deputy's first question showed a concern for nuclear disarmament but it is clear he is more concerned with scoring political points.
Will the Minister agree that the Foreign Ministers of France and Germany took advantage of the absence of the Irish Minister to issue a statement to the international press supporting the deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe? Is the Minister aware that in the last week millions of Europeans have been demonstrating against the deployment of Pershing, Cruise and SS-20s? Will the Minister accept that this is not simply a matter of East or West; it is a question of the survival of Europe and whether Europe will face yet again another war? The super powers have honed in once again on Europe, threatening that Continent's stability and peace. Will the Minister, as a result of what I have said, support the ideals expressed by the peace people throughout Europe and in Ireland?
I am not aware of the precise statement issued by France and Germany but I would be flattered to think that they took advantage of our absence to issue it. That they might not have issued it had we been present is a bit unduly flattering. I am aware that many hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated for peace over the weekend and that is entirely commendable. All of us would support the peace movement, CND and similar things, and all of us would wish that these movements would extend east of the Iron Curtain to the same degree.
Since the question was tabled by Deputy De Rossa I will permit him to ask a final supplementary.
On previous occasions when I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make direct representations to the US on the siting of Cruise and Pershing missiles he refused to make that commitment. Am I to take it that the Minister, in the course of his reply, is stating that the Government have made direct representations concerning the siting of Cruise and Pershing missiles and that they have made the view known to the US that they oppose the siting of those missiles?
I told the House that the Government have made known their concern about the arms race in Europe directly to the parties concerned and in public fora of which we are members.
I am anxious to ask a supplementary.
I must move on. The Deputy is coming in fresh on this question and he could keep the matter going for another ten minutes. I cannot allow a further supplementary.
I am anxious to raise one matter. The trend of today's Order Paper is totally opposed to a long time friend of our country and I resent the type of questions being asked. They are totally opposed to friends of ours, the US, and leaning towards long-term opponents, for the want of a better word.
That is not a question.