Written Answers. - US Defence Policy.
Thomas P. Broughan
Ceist:
88
Mr. Broughan
asked the
Minister for Foreign Affairs
if the Government has made representations to the United States authorities regarding its proposed missile defence programme; if so, the response received; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[17781/01]
Austin Currie
Ceist:
95
Mr. Currie
asked the
Minister for Foreign Affairs
the position of the Government on the US proposal for a nuclear missile shield and the announcement by the US Government that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Treaty is a relic of the past.
[17928/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 88 and 95 together.
The Deputies will be aware that the proposals put forward on missile defence are of a general nature. The US Administration has yet not made clear its thinking on a number of specific aspects but it is clear that the current administration intends to pursue the missile defence option. In line with an earlier commitment to consult with its allies and other interested parties, the US is now involved in a process of such consultation. We understand that President Bush last week discussed this with his allies in NATO and with President Putin of the Russian Federation whom he met in Slovenia.
The declared intention of the US Administration to reduce further its stockpile of nuclear warheads is, in itself, positive. The previous Administration accepted last year at the United Nations General Assembly the objective put forward by Ireland, together with its partners in the New Agenda Coalition, of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Any genuine progress in this direction would of course be a constructive step.
The Anti-Ballistic MissileTreaty, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union, has served the world well as a cornerstone of nuclear arms reductions and as a central element in diminishing the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war. In this regard, it can be seen as a vital framework until such time as nuclear weapons have been eliminated.
President Bush has made it clear that he does not regard the ABM Treaty as relevant to what he describes as "the new strategic environment" and he has also made it clear that the United States sees a need "to move beyond the constraints" of the ABM Treaty. I would be extremely concerned if this could lead to the ending of the ABM Treaty and the consequential destabilisation of the present nuclear balance. This could result in a renewed nuclear weapons arms race and the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is for this reason that Ireland has supported resolutions at the two most recent sessions of the UN General Assembly on the need to uphold the existing framework of the ABM Treaty and in the context of plans leading to the elimination of the nuclear arsenals.
At the fifth review conference of the states parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty last year, the 187 states parties, including the five nuclear weapons states, agreed "that the ABM Treaty be strengthened as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons". It is our hope therefore that the Bush Administration will have regard to the commitment which was undertaken by the United States at the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference.
Ireland has consistently opposed any moves which might undermine the current balance of strategic stability. The Government continues to work in all appropriate fora to achieve the objectives of its disarmament policy in relation to weapons of mass destruction. Our views and concerns on this matter have been and continue to be communicated to the Bush Administration in all our contacts.
