Vol. 474 No. 8
I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the resolution establishing the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organisation, passed by consensus on 19 November 1996 in New York at a meeting of the States Signatories of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996) annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects.
Ireland was privileged to hold the Presidency of the European Union at a time when significant progress was achieved in two important areas of disarmament. I refer to the adoption and opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on the one hand and a range of activities which culminated in the UN General Assembly's call for an international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines on the other. As Presidency, Ireland saw to it that the European Union as such as well as individual members were instrumental in a practical way, with others, in securing these notable advances.
I am very pleased to move two motions today, one directly related to the CTBT and one related to a measure whose adoption indirectly gave impetus to the move towards a total ban on anti-personnel landmines.
By adopting the CTBT with a resounding vote before the close of the 50th session of the UN General Assembly last September, the international community secured at last, a legal instrument which bans all nuclear weapon test explosions and all other nuclear weapon test time. The question of halting nuclear testing had long been a major preoccupation of the General Assembly. In 1993 it had put aside earlier differences and unanimously mandated the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a multilateral and verifiable nuclear test ban treaty. Following the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, it had set 1996 as the deadline for the adoption of a treaty.
Two days before Ireland assumed the EU Presidency, the 1996 spring session of the Conference of Disarmament concluded without formally adopting a treaty, thus jeopardising the aim of opening the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for signature in late September at the start of the 51st session of the General Assembly. Ireland immediately signalled its readiness, as Presidency, to take any action which partners deemed appropriate for the realisation of an objective to which the European Union, successive Governments and all political parties in Dáil Éireann attached the highest priority. During the brief summer session of the conference, the Presidency issued two Declarations on behalf of the Union and Associated States, 30 countries in all, urging acceptance of the draft treaty then on the table and seeking to impart to the proceedings in Geneva the sense of urgency to conclude which was felt by the international community.
When the draft treaty was vetoed by India in late August, Australia, a CD member from the Asia Pacific in which region all five nuclear weapons states had at some point conducted a nuclear test, assumed the onerous responsibility of leading the drive to secure the timely adoption of the treaty by the General Assembly. Ireland, as EU Presidency, worked closely with Australia and others in orchestrating demarches in African, Asian and Latin American capitals, some 100 countries in all, in a period of barely two weeks, to convey the unequivocal support of the European Union for the draft treaty and to invite support and co-sponsorship. It was imperative that the window of opportunity to end nuclear testing for all time should on no account slip away. Ultimately, a total of 126 states co-sponsored the draft Resolution whereby the General Assembly, on 10 September, adopted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by an overwhelmingly positive vote: 158 in favour, three against — Bhutan, India and Libya — and five abstentions — Cuba, Lebanon, Mauritius, Tanzania and Syria. The depth and breadth of the positive vote showed the strength of international feeling against nuclear testing and the desire of the vast majority of states to see a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in place.
The Tánaiste was among the first group of Heads of State and Government and Foreign Ministers who signed the treaty at United Nations headquarters in New York on the day it was opened for signature, 24 September 1996. To date, 141 countries have signed the treaty. The preparatory commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation, CTBTO, which will be based in Vienna and will monitor implementation of the treaty, has begun its work with a view to ensuring that the verification regime will be capable of meeting the requirements of the treaty at entry into force.
In authorising the Tánaiste to sign the treaty, subject to ratification, on behalf of Ireland, the Government on 18 September also agreed to participation by Ireland in the preparatory commission for the CTBTO subject to approval by Dáil Éireann which is not at this time called upon to approve the treaty, this will arise prior to ratification.
In essence, the treaty is a non-discriminatory agreement which will prohibit any nuclear weapon test explosion and any other nuclear explosion thereby constraining the development of nuclear weapons; through its preamble, it places the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the context of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament initiatives; it provides for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation, CTBTO, to be established in Vienna on entry into force following advance work by a preparatory commission; it establishes the Conference of State Parties and an Executive Council comprising 51 members drawn from six regional groups to direct the work of the CTBTO; it establishes a global non-discriminatory verification regime comprising an international monitoring system, IMS, with seismic, radionuclide and infrasound monitoring stations together with an on-site inspection regime designed to ensure effective verification while preventing excessive intrusion on the one hand and abuse on the other; it will enter into force 180 days after the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification of 44 named countries but in no case earlier than two years after its opening for signature.
The listing of 44 countries means that entry into force requires the participation of all nuclear capable countries, including all those which have tested nuclear weapons. India's opposition to the adoption of the treaty and its declared intention not to sign or ratify it means that a special waiver provision is likely to be invoked in the event that the treaty has not entered into force three years after its opening for signature.
Notwithstanding uncertainties surrounding its entry into force, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is already invaluable in that it establishes a new international norm against all nuclear testing. It represents one of the most sought after nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament measures in the history of the United Nations. While certainly not the end of the process of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, its adoption was the essential next step. It behoves Ireland as a long time advocate of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to lose no time before contributing to the preparatory commission which will lay the foundation for implementing the treaty. In this spirit, I commend the motion to the House.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I said earlier that support grew rapidly last year for an international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines. I was extremely disappointed at the outcome of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention Review Conference which ended early in May. Nevertheless, it opened the way to a significant shift of focus in international action in this field. Without disavowing good faith efforts to regulate the use of anti-personnel landmines so as to minimise their cruel and indiscriminate effects on civilians, major countries set about building international support for moving towards a ban on these weapons, Ireland associated itself enthusiastically with these endeavours. Canada, through the October Ottawa Conference, and the United States in leading on a new landmines Resolution in the First Committee of the General Assembly at UNGA provided essential focus for the growing international momentum towards a ban on these weapons.
On 8 May, just after the amended Protocol II was adopted, the Tánaiste and I spoke about the desirability of ending for all time the scourge of anti-personnel landmines. I am glad of this opportunity to inform the Dáil briefly about the role Ireland has been playing since then in key developments in the total ban movement and on other aspects of the landmines issue. As chairperson of the Council of Development Ministers, I made a ban on landmines one of the key objectives of the Irish Presidency.
The Irish Presidency succeeded in achieving agreement at the General Affairs Council on 1 October on a new joint action articulating European Union policy on anti-personnel landmines. The joint action solemnly enshrines, for the first time, the commitment of the Union to the goal of the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines and its pledge to work actively towards the achievement at the earliest possible date of an effective international agreement to ban these weapons worldwide. The existing EU common moratorium on exports of APLs is extended in scope to cover the export of all APLs to all destinations. An EU financial contribution to international mine clearance is envisaged on an ongoing basis, with an amount of 7 million ECUs provided for initiatives to be launched in the period up to 1997; this is separate from European Union action in the field of mine clearance and from the bilateral contributions of member states on the issue.
Ireland was privileged to serve as one of a half dozen core group countries that worked with Canada in advance of the international strategy meeting on banning anti-personnel mines which Canada hosted in Ottawa from 3 to 5 October. We were asked to be part of that core group because of the leading position we have taken at a number of international conferences on the issue.
The attendance of delegates from the mine affected states of Ethiopia, Burkina Faso and Mozambique was a feature of that conference, but our critical contribution was to position the EU as such, through the joint action, in the vanguard of the total ban movement. All 15 member states eventually elected to be among the 50 full participants at the Ottawa conference which was undoubtedly a landmark event. In the Ottawa Declaration, these 50 countries agreed to work together to ensure the earliest possible conclusion of an international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines; to ensure progressive reductions in new deployments with the urgent objective of halting new deployments altogether; and to promote regional and sub-regional activities in support of a global ban. An agenda for action adopted on the responsibility of the chairman of the conference listed concrete actions ahead in all regions, designed to move the process forward in preparation for a follow-up conference to be hosted by Belgium at the end of June 1997.
Hard on the heels of the conference the United States, in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, canvassed an ambitious new resolution urging States to pursue vigorously an effective, legally binding international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines with a view to completing the negotiations as soon as possible. This welcome change of heart by the United States Government was brought about by the consequences of the US forces in Bosnia encountering some three million landmines and a number of fatalities and serious injuries rather than the immense suffering of hundreds of thousands of adults, particularly children, in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola and Mozambique. As EU Presidency, Ireland worked very closely with the US, Canada and others to help shield this inherently challenging initiative from hostile amendment by building the widest possible level of support and co-sponsorship for it. No fewer than 155 countries cast a positive vote for the total ban proposal in the plenary vote on 10 December; ten countries, admittedly including some major players in this context, abstained; none voted against. Our major objective at this point is to consolidate, in a new and no less difficult phase, the political advances made during our Presidency in enlarging support for an early total ban agreement.
Progress is clearly being made in building political support for a global ban. What purpose would then be served, it might be asked, by Ireland's signifying its consent to be bound by the Amended Protocol II? The answer, essentially, is that translating political support into a new legally binding norm prohibiting anti-personnel landmines remains a very big challenge. Pending the establishment of that new norm, Amended Protocol II to the CCW Convention contains the most far-reaching legally binding restrictions yet agreed on the use and transfer of these weapons. It is important that the 20 ratifications needed to bring these restrictions into force are secured at the earliest possible date. EU member states are committed under the new joint action to ratify quickly. As the architect of the joint action, Ireland ought to be among the first to do so.
Second, not all countries have joined the global ban process. The parties to the existing Protocol II include countries which are, or which have the potential to be, the world's largest exporters of landmines to developing countries, particularly as most developed countries now operate moratoria on such exports. We want, for example, to encourage these countries to accept the Amended Protocol, thus copperfastening the modest concessions they made in the review conference.
Third, the Protocol contains a number of advances: its scope extends to internal conflicts where the most serious problems caused by landmines have arisen; it bans the use of non-detectable anti-personnel landmines, thereby reversing the trend of recent decades towards non-detectable devices; it includes technical restrictions on long-lived mines; it affords stronger protection to UN peacekeeping missions whose commanders will be entitled to receive from the parties to a conflict comprehensive information on mines and minefields which they have laid; and it introduces a ban on the transfer of prohibited mines with immediate effect and generally restricts transfers to states which accept the constraints of the new instrument.
The amended Protocol II includes a provision for annual consultations among state parties. This will create a forum for putting pressure on those parties to the Protocol who do not subscribe to a complete ban, to take further measures to eliminate the scourge of landmines.
I commend the motion to the House. Having raised this issue originally when I became chairperson of the Development Council, I am extremely disappointed there is not now a total ban on the use of landmines, nonetheless we have made substantial progress, but we must bear in mind the thousands of children who lose arms and legs because work on this is moving so slowly.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael Kitt.
I am sure that is in order and agreed.
I have spoken regularly in this House on the need to conclude a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and to prohibit conclusively the use and sale of anti-personnel mines. I warmly welcome the opportunity provided for this debate, albeit brief, on the important issue before the House.
The prohibition on the use of landmines is a cause dear to members of Fianna Fáil and one which my party has been very active in pursuing. On 8 May last year I, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, introduced a Private Members' Bill on the prohibition of landmines. It proposed the prohibition of the production, procurement, transfer, sale, repair, stockpiling, import and use of anti-personnel landmines in this State. It also proposed the destruction of all anti-personnel landmines held within the State for purposes other than mine clearance training by the Irish armed forces.
At that time the Government was of the opinion that the Dangerous Substances Act, 1972 was sufficient to contain the use of anti-personnel landmines and the Government's reaction to the Fianna Fáil prohibition of landmines Bill demonstrated its failure to recognise the gravity of the landmines issue and the concurrent need for all nations to demonstrate their position on this critical issue.
Fianna Fáil believes that Ireland stands in an ideal position to take a leadership role to mobilise the objectives of a total ban on landmines in the international arena. In May last year the opportunity for leadership was presented when Fianna Fáil proposed the prohibition of landmines Bill. The Government insisted that its legislative programme was too cluttered to enact primary legislation on the issue and the opportunity for leadership was lost. As a second rate alternative the Government brought the landmines order before the House on 19 June 1996 and I welcomed that as a step in the right direction.
It is important to recall that an estimated 110 million landmines contaminate 70 countries worldwide and an estimated 26,000 people are maimed by landmines every year, running at about 500 per week. Landmines have an equally devastating economic effect. For example, Cambodia has a population of approximately 9.3 million and an estimated ten million mines are laid on its soil. Cambodia imports in excess of 200,000 tonnes of rice since the land cannot be farmed due to the presence of mines. Figures for 1993 suggest that approximately 10,000 mines have been removed worldwide at a cost of $70 million. Ironically, during the same period, between two and five million landmines were laid throughout the world. Landmines indiscriminately kill innocent men, women and children. Their use must be prohibited. I make this rational appeal to each Member of the House.
It will cost an estimated $33 billion to remove all the landmines already laid. Until that time, because of them fertile land will be left barren and unproductive making impossible economic reconstruction, the resettlement of refugees and the post-conflict redevelopment of society.
The call to prohibit the use of landmines across the globe has recently gathered momentum. The number of countries calling for a total ban has grown from four to more than 40 in 1997. We must maintain this momentum by supporting the motion before the House. Subsequently, we must strive to achieve the goal shared by each Member of this House — a worldwide ban on the manufacture, sale, stockpiling, importation, transfer, sale, repair and use of anti-personnel landmines.
In recent years, particularly during the political aftermath of the French nuclear tests at Muroroa Atoll in September 1995 and during the Irish EU Presidency, I have called on the Tánaiste and the Government to unequivocally declare Ireland's stance on nuclear testing and the wider issue of nuclear disarmament. That opportunity is now afforded to each Member of the House. We must support this second motion before the House.
On 22 April last year an EU declaration stated:
The European Union attaches the highest priority and is strongly committed to the conclusion, before the end of the spring session of the Conference on Disarmament, of negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which will prohibit any nuclear tests, explosion or any other nuclear explosion so as to enable its signature by autumn at the outset of the 51st UN General Assembly.
The spring session of the Conference on Disarmament ended on 28 June without formally adopting the treaty. However, despite this setback the United Nation's General Assembly decided to open the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty for signature in New York on 24 September.
The treaty does not mark the end of the process of nuclear non-proliferation by any means, nor is the treaty conclusive in its treatment of the issue of nuclear weapons testing. EU members are not completely satisfied with the treatment of some of the key issues in the treaty, but it represents a concrete step in the right direction.
As a militarily neutral nation committed to the principle of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, Ireland has a vital role to play in providing leadership on this important issue, particularly within the framework of the European Union. Situations such as that which occurred in September 1995 during the French nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific must not be tolerated or repeated. The EU must not be allowed to develop as a military superpower committed to the use of nuclear deterrents. Ireland must remain steadfast on these issues. We cannot abandon the principles of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation which are held so dear by the Irish people. We must continue to work towards these goals and not be satisfied with less. A ban on nuclear testing is a step in the right direction but it must be followed by other braver steps and more hard work.
We must also work to ensure that non-military nuclear installations such as THORP and Sellafield are closed. We must not allow the nuclear dump to be developed at Sellafield. The number of tragedies involving cancer victims along the east coast, including my own area of north County Dublin, provides significant evidence of the dangers posed by Sellafield, which must be closed down.
I call on each Member of the House to support both motions.
I thank Deputy Burke for sharing his time with me. I welcome both motions introduced by the Minister of State. In common with all Members of the House, I have condemned nuclear testing carried out in recent times by both the French and Chinese authorities. There is great hypocrisy in some of the statements that have been issued by both the French and Chinese Governments. I remember receiving a statement from the embassy of the People's Republic of China after the nuclear test on 8 June 1996. Such countries commit themselves not to use nuclear weapons and call for a moratorium on nuclear testing, while at the same time claiming they need to carry out one more test to ensure the safety of nuclear weapons. These statements, coupled with the tests, resemble the actions of a chronic gambler playing with people's lives. I welcome the Minister's statement that we can look forward to having no more testing.
On the landmines issue about which the Minister has often spoken in the House, I raised this issue on the Order of Business in relation to legislation which was due to follow from the debate on 8 May. I understand an order was made in June and the Minister for Tourism and Trade, Deputy Kenny, signed an order on 3 December. There was a delay in getting the order signed. The Control of Exports Order makes the export of military goods, including mines, subject to the issuing of a licence from the Department of Tourism and Trade. Despite the delay in signing it, I hope the order is now in place.
I welcome the fact that we are discussing both motions, particularly the one concerning landmines which are appalling weapons. The number of such weapons manufactured worldwide is appalling. While they are manufactured cheaply they cost a great deal of money to detect and remove. It is one of the great contradictions that while the European Union funds the clearance of mines, some EU states continue to sell them throughout the developing world.
There has been a change of policy in some countries and the situation in Belgium is particularly welcome. However, it is appalling that these indiscriminate weapons have caused the deaths of so many people — children playing as well as people harvesting crops and collecting firewood. The situation was brought home to us by representatives from Angola who attended a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. More than nine million mines have been laid in Angola, whose representatives spoke about the horrific injuries these weapons have caused.
Deputy Burke mentioned Cambodia which is always cited as an example of a country where there is one landmine for every citizen. It has the highest percentage of landmines in the world. It is difficult to carry out any development in a country where landmines are so prevalent. The Government must press for a worldwide ban on all mines. The United Nations spoke about the urgency of mine clearence operations and has urged that savings on military expenditure should be redirected to mine clearence. That makes sense because up to now the humanitarian aid budget has been spent on mine clearance.
I welcome the Minister's comments on landmines and internal conflicts. This will now be covered by the convention. We are told there are more than 100 internal conflicts throughout the world. I hope we will be able to monitor the situation in these countries and review the inhumane weapons convention. The horror of landmines was brought home to me on seeing the situation in Cambodia after the elections there when 350,000 refugees returning home could use only 8 per cent of the land because the rest was mined. There is no such thing as a humane landmine. The Minister is to be congratulated on moving this motion. I hope the Government will continue to press for a total and world-wide ban on all landmines.
I welcome these two motions in so far as they go and I am pleased to support them.
I will deal first with the motion on the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation. This motion really only deals with a quite minor preliminary point. I am somewhat disappointed that the treaty itself which was signed in September is not before the House for ratification. There is no reason it should not. I have no doubt that we will ratify it, and we should ratify it at the earliest date. While the approval of this preparatory commission is also necessary, I feel strongly that we should set a headline by ratifying the treaty.
Apparently legislation will be required to implement the provisions of the treaty. I do not know how detailed that legislation will be but if the treaty is very complex, it may itself be complex. I hope there will not be a long delay. Frequently we have seen such conventions signed on behalf of Ireland with a great fanfare and, four or five years later, we have still not ratified them. It would be preferable if all these things could be done together.
In considering the whole question of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by the vast majority of world states in September, we should not look just at those countries that did not sign it. India's opposition to it is well known. The vote of Bhutan against it is not significant because Bhutan is essentially a colony of India, and Libya is a maverick that would probably vote against everything anyway. There are five countries listed among those who supported it about whose bona fides I would be very doubtful in this context of nuclear weapons. They are China, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. All five of those either have or are believed to have nuclear weapons and to have tested nuclear weapons to one degree or another. The fact that they may sign a treaty of this kind is of little value to the human race if they are not observing its spirit. We need to bear them in mind if we are to have a realistic view of what is happening on the ground, and what is happening on the ground is not what happens with a flourish at the United Nations in New York in any given September; it is what various countries like these are doing. Those five constitute a threat to the future depending on what they do and continue to do.
Two other countries that give rise to concern in regard to nuclear weapons are the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, both of whom have stockpiles of very substantial quantities of nuclear weapons, both of whom are financially in extremis and each of whom is known to have sold nuclear weapons to states who should not get them. I do not wish to be unsympathetic to the financial and economic plight of people living in Russia and the Ukraine but, at the same time, there should be an effective ban on the sale of these weapons that can be properly monitored. We know that such weapons are being sold, and every effort should be made by the international community to discourage their sale because if they are sold, the real tragedy is that ultimately they may well be used by somebody.
On the nuclear side, and particularly in relation to the military aspects of the nuclear question, we cannot forget in a motion like this the position that exists at Sellafield. The aspect that should concern us is the evidence that has come to light in recent weeks about the Nirex site which is only about four miles from the Sellafield complex. Evidence has now come to light — I think it was leaked rather than officially published, but its accuracy is apparently not denied — that the Nirex site is seriously unsuitable for the storage of nuclear waste. The nuclear waste arising at Sellafield is not just the conventional waste arising from used uranium, but includes elements of plutonium which are manufactured in the Sellafield complex, at least partly for military purposes. A meeting is due to take place in the House this afternoon of Committee D of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body, of which I am a member. Unfortunately, I cannot attend as I have to go to Limerick this afternoon, but I have written the chairman a letter drawing attention to the fact that the draft report of that committee on the Sellafield question and the question of the contamination of the Irish Sea is now out of date because of what has come to light in recent weeks in relation to the Nirex site. I do not know how the chairman proposes to deal with it, but it is something we cannot accept and that gives rise to a great deal of concern.
To turn to the other motion on prohibitions and restrictions on the use of mines, booby traps and other devices, again one enthusiastically supports it. However, when one reads the Protocol, it is enormously disappointing, as I am sure the Minister will agree, because most of the text is taken up with exceptions and exemptions. There are a few statements at the start of each article that X is prohibited and then it goes on line after line, paragraph after paragraph, to detail the exemptions and exceptions to the overall prohibition. The result is that the prohibition is relatively limited and not at all as extensive as one might think at first sight or as one might wish.
We have debated the question of landmines before in this House on more that one occasion. There is certainly universal revulsion not just in this country but in most civilised countries in the world at the use of such appalling devices which invariably cause injury almost exclusively to civilians rather than to military targets. The civilians injured are predominantly women and children who are permanently maimed.
The Minister of State said all European Union member states have agreed to a total ban on exports. If that is correct, it is an advance because some of our dear colleagues in this cherished Union were making and exporting these appalling mines until recently. Will the Minister of State give a categoric assurance that they have stopped and are not just saying they have because they are under pressure to say so? Some have substantial stocks of these mines and I hope they will destroy them because if they are kept, I fear they will be used at a later stage.
The Minister of State referred to three mine affected countries — Ethiopia, Burkina Faso and Mozambique to whom we have given help. I hope she is not implying that they are the only countries affected. There must be 20 countries seriously affected by mines. Unfortunately, they are all Third World underdeveloped countries with poor people living at subsistence level who must go into certain areas for their subsistence to try to stay alive. It is a tragedy.
The cost of removing a mine is about 100 times greater than the cost of making and planting it. If there was ever something which should be universally and without exception or exemption banished from the face of the earth, it is these wretched anti-personnel mines.
I thank Deputies for their contributions and their welcome for these two measures. The Irish position on landmines and on the comprehensive abolition of nuclear weapons has been made clear for a long time. In both these areas, the international movement is extraordinarily slow. With like minded countries, such as Canada, we have sought to build a global coalition which will get anti-personnel landmines banned, but there are grey areas.
The European Union has slowly moved to a more advanced position, specifically the moratorium on exports. A significant number of European Union states have defence industries and are involved in the production of landmines. It was only as a consequence of what happened in Bosnia where the American Joint Chiefs of Staff had a rapid change of heart on the issue of landmines that they became like swords — outdated weapons which were no longer necessary from a military and tactical point of view.
This is the second time the Minister of State referred to the American change of heart. President Clinton deserves more credit than she is giving him for his commitment and that of his administration to the abolition of landmines. Although his case may have been strengthened by the experience of the American military, he deserves greater credit. He campaigned for the abolition of landmines before Bosnia and had voiced his strongly held humanitarian view that they should be banned.
I find the American position helpful. While everybody, like St. Augustine, seemed to want to rid the world of such things, no will or mechanism was found for the expression of the act of will until generals and soldiers came forward to say we did not need them and that the main victims were not the other combatants in the war, but civilians, including children. Influential people in the British military have taken the same position, although the British Government continues to have a reserved position on this issue, as do a number of other EU Governments. The recent visit by Princess Diana to Angola will do more to inform British public opinion than, unfortunately, the campaigning by the various NGOs.
As a neutral country and a member of the European Union, we have given a lead in that we are one of the key countries trying to build this worldwide coalition. The event being held in Belgium in June is positive. Belgium, which has a long association with landmines, will host the next conference that seeks to take us a step further down this road. The Ottawa conference was a mechanism outside UN structures dealing with weapons. In many instances, amending the various conferences, including the test ban treaty on nuclear weapons or the conventions on conventional weapons, takes years. As Deputy O'Malley said, when one reads the small print of what we are signing up to and sees that it took several years of conferences and detailed discussions with hundreds of people from different countries, the end result is small. The main way in which landmines will pass into the realm of swords and other discarded weapons of war is by the continued campaign by NGOs, including Trócaire and Pax Christi, to rid the world of these weapons.
I accept Deputy O'Malley's point on the comprehensive test ban treaty, particularly in relation to India. We have given a clear lead in calling for a total ban on nuclear weapons. The measures before the House today are another step on this road. We all understand the politics of India's position. This is the 50th anniversary of Indian independence and it would be nice if it marked the celebrations by fully signing up to the comprehensive test ban treaty. India has said it will not sign up until there is an agreement by all nuclear states to the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. While we want this to happen, this is a step in that direction.
Deputies will know there is a Cabinet sub-committee which reviews issues in relation to Sellafield on an ongoing basis. Information which has become available on Nirex will be the subject of a detailed submission from my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Stagg, to the British authorities. That information provides scientific validity to the expressions of not only concern, but deep fear about the proposal. The Government's objective is to seek the closure of Sellafield and that the Nirex proposal does not see the light of day. We will continue to work to achieve that objective.
