Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Jun 2012

Vol. 769 No. 3

Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Issues: Statements

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues with Deputies. For more than five decades, the Government has pursued a policy of complete opposition to nuclear weapons and in this has enjoyed strong cross-party political support in this House. This support has been important in enabling successive Ministers and officials to speak out strongly on issues important to us in international fora. I believe it is both appropriate and timely that, as the states parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty enter the treaty's 2015 review cycle, the House should be enabled to consider and discuss Ireland's position and role within wider international efforts to achieve the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, and that I should set out some of the challenges currently facing those efforts.

Ireland has a long and distinguished record in multilateral efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. In 1958, just three years after we were admitted to the United Nations, Minister Frank Aiken tabled the first of the so-called "Irish resolutions" in the UN General Assembly. These paved the way directly for the discussions which ultimately produced the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT. The treaty remains at the heart of international efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons to this day. It contains the only international legal obligation to disarm nuclear weapons and it is a cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. This was no mean achievement for a small, fledgling UN member state seeking to promote nuclear non-proliferation at the height of the Cold War arms race. Ireland's pioneering role in the NPT process was subsequently recognised when we were invited to become the treaty's first signatory. We were the first country to sign and ratify it, and we have been associated by name with it ever since.

The lasting achievement of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been to diminish the spectre of nuclear war. The so-called "bargain"' at the heart of the treaty requires the nuclear-weapon states to undertake to disarm their nuclear weapons, in return for which all other states agree to forgo nuclear weapons. All states are granted the right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, subject to verification.

While it is crucial that the treaty is implemented in full across all three of its pillars - disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses - I must say, with regret, that progress in implementing its disarmament objectives has been much slower than progress under the two other pillars. I see this as being among the first challenges facing the NPT. The treaty's obligation to disarm is now more than 40 years old. If there were ever factors justifying the retention of large nuclear deterrents during the Cold War - there were not - these surely ceased to apply when the Cold War ended. However, even with the dissipation of Cold War tensions and with the indefinite extension of the treaty, progress on disarmament stagnated. In 2000, states parties agreed 13 practical steps towards accelerating nuclear disarmament. Ireland and her New Agenda Coalition partners, for whom disarmament is a key priority, played a central role in this regard. These steps were subsequently reaffirmed at the 2010 NPT review conference, but for the most part they remain unimplemented.

As we enter the 2015 NPT review cycle, it is estimated that more than 23,000 nuclear weapons remain in place. For as long as these weapons continue to exist, the threat which they pose to humanity will remain. If they are perceived to carry a political or tactical benefit, or even - for some - a sense of prestige, they will encourage proliferation and non-compliance with international obligations. It is of great concern that, long after the end of the Cold War, the old concept of deterrence is cited as a justification for retaining and, as we read this week, modernising arsenals.

In terms of establishing the foundations for success at the 2015 NPT review conference, Ireland will be among those states looking to the nuclear-weapon states to build confidence that they are seriously and in good faith fulfilling their obligation to achieve the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. They are legally obliged to do this by Article VI of the treaty, applying the principles of irreversibility, verifiability and enhanced transparency as they proceed. It is undoubtedly the case that progress towards complete disarmament will strengthen in turn the treaty's non-proliferation objectives, as any possible incentive for joining "the club" is reduced and eventually removed. As the 2015 review cycle progresses, we will therefore be looking for progress reports from the nuclear-weapon states along the way, particularly in 2014, by which date they have committed themselves to report to the wider NPT membership on progress.

There are a number of serious challenges to what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty seeks to achieve. First among these is the fact that three countries remain outside the treaty and are not, therefore, bound by its basic disarmament and non-proliferation imperatives. Two of those countries, India and Pakistan, are regional neighbours with a history of rivalry and dispute. Both are nuclear-capable states working to develop their missile capability.

The third non-NPT state, Israel, is presumed by many to possess a nuclear arsenal, although it maintains a policy of opacity in this regard and has never declared itself to possess nuclear weapons. Israel has claimed on a number of occasions that it faces an existential threat from its regional neighbours. In the case of two of these neighbours, Iran and Syria, many questions have been raised regarding their compliance with the NPT and their co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. Iran claims that it is entitled to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. However, as I have made clear in this House on several occasions, in asserting that right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy Iran must comply fully with its NPT commitments. It must co-operate fully with the IAEA to resolve all outstanding matters on its nuclear programme. It must also comply with successive resolutions of the agency's board of governors and the United Nations' Security Council on this matter. By the same token, Syria must comply fully with its IAEA safeguards agreement and with its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Both of these situations, in south Asia and in the Middle East, remain of considerable concern. They represent significant challenges to international peace and security. Ireland will continue to call upon all three states not yet party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to sign and ratify the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states, and to enter into a full scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA. We will continue to support international efforts to ensure compliance by all NPT states with their international obligations including, where necessary, through sanctions.

In addition to these situations, a fourth state - the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DPRK, or North Korea, remains of grave concern. In 2003 the DPRK announced that it was walking away from its NPT commitments. Since then it has conducted a number of nuclear explosives and missile tests. I strongly call on the authorities in Pyongyang to come back into full NPT and IAEA compliance and to desist from any further nuclear explosive or missile testing. The importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, system as a means of verifying the nuclear activities of member states and of ensuring minimum standards of safety and security cannot be understated. The terrible accident at Fukushima last year demonstrated that nuclear accidents do not respect borders and nuclear safety is a concern for all. The inherent dangers in a nuclear device falling into the hands of non-state actors are self-evident. The House may be assured we will continue to use every opportunity to support the agency in its work.

These are not the only challenges facing the international non-proliferation regime. More than 15 years after it opened for signature, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, CTBT, is not yet in force. The treaty prohibits all nuclear weapons test explosions and all other nuclear explosions, and thereby impedes the development and qualitative improvement of these weapons and the technological advancement of new types of nuclear weapons. It must enter into force without further delay. The provocative nuclear tests conducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in 2006 and 2009 clearly demonstrate that there is an urgent need for such a treaty.

To enter into force, all 44 countries listed in annex 2 to the CTBT must sign and ratify the treaty. These are the countries that were recognised as being nuclear-capable at the time of the treaty's negotiation. So far, 36 have ratified. Ireland has repeatedly called on all states, but particularly the remaining eight annex 2 states, to sign and ratify without further delay so as to achieve the treaty's entry into force. The United States has an important leadership role to play in this regard and I welcome the pledges by President Obama's Administration to pursue early entry into force. Ratification by the United States as one of the annex 2 states yet to ratify would encourage ratifications by others. In the meantime, the treaty acts as a strong international bulwark against nuclear test explosions. I expect the international community to react firmly in response to any such explosion.

A crucial element of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization, CTBTO, is its international monitoring system, which offers an effective global verification system. The system is participatory and therefore non-discriminatory. It provides credible assurances of compliance and will also help in seismic and tsunami warning, as demonstrated during the tragic nuclear accident in Fukushima last year. I commend the progress achieved to date in the build-up of this verification regime and I stress the need to continue working towards its early completion.

In this respect, I am delighted that tomorrow morning I will be opening Ireland's CTBTO national data centre at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies along with Dr. Lassina Zerbo of the organisation's international data centre division. This reaffirms Ireland's strong and long-standing support for the treaty and represents another step in the build-up of the international monitoring system.

Since Ireland joined the Conference on Disarmament in 1999, the conference has been paralysed by its own rules of procedure. A rule whereby all decisions must be taken by consensus has created an effective right of veto. This cannot continue. Among the proposed programme of work is a treaty that would ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Negotiations on such a treaty are long overdue and must begin at the earliest opportunity.

With so many security challenges facing us, we cannot allow the world's main disarmament negotiation body to become a by-word for institutional and policy failure. We are willing to examine a range of proposals and issues to assist the conference in getting back to work. These include the issue of its membership, its ties with civil society and its internal procedures. If the Conference on Disarmament cannot agree and implement a programme of work, the wider UN membership in the General Assembly will need to assume its responsibility to act. It would be deeply damaging to the UN and multilateralism if the current state of affairs were allowed to continue.

Having set out some of the challenges facing us as we strive towards a world free of nuclear efforts, I would like to set out some recent positive developments. The first concerns ongoing efforts towards a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, WMDs, and their delivery systems. The 1995 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT, review and extension conference adopted a Middle East resolution that called for the establishment of a zone free of WMDs. It was part of a package deal that also included the indefinite extension of the treaty. Progress towards its implementation has been seen, therefore, particularly by Arab states, as important in terms of the treaty's viability. Ireland sees progress on the Middle East resolution as a key objective. At the 2010 NPT review conference, we brokered agreement on a text that emphasised the importance of a process leading to full implementation of the 1995 resolution and set out a number of practical steps, including the convening of a conference in 2012.

The appointment of a conference facilitator and a host government for the 2012 conference was announced in October 2011. Finland will host and the Finnish Under-Secretary of State for foreign and security policy, Mr. Jaakko Laajava, will act as facilitator. Mr. Laajava has not yet announced dates or other details for the conference. He is still consulting intensively with interested stakeholders, both within the region and beyond. Ireland strongly supports the facilitator in his work. Officials from my Department have given him detailed briefings on our experience of the process that led to the 2010 agreement. We have indicated that we remain at his disposal.

There is now a fair measure of understanding of what is required to achieve a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. Despite the non-universality of the treaty, I believe the 1995 resolution contains most of the fundamental elements. What we need now is political will, both inside and outside the region, to take the process forward. The recent history of this island has shown that accommodation is possible, even on those issues that have been long regarded as intractable. What is important is that there is a willingness on all sides to engage constructively in a collaborative process moving forward.

I want to finish by referring to efforts towards a nuclear weapons convention. A number of Deputies would be supportive of such a convention. In October 2008, UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-moon suggested that NPT states could "consider negotiating a nuclear weapons convention, backed by a strong system of verification, as has long been proposed at the United Nations." Ireland has always been a strong supporter of complete nuclear disarmament. We support the objective of a nuclear weapons convention and the commencement of collective preparatory work in this direction.

However, given the current level of opposition to a convention - as many as 50 states are regarded as either sceptical or lukewarm and four out of five of the nuclear weapons states are opposed - we do not anticipate agreement being reached on a convention in the short term. Article VI of the NPT is the only legally binding multilateral commitment by the nuclear weapons states to disarm their arsenals. We are keen to protect this while remaining supportive of the idea of a convention.

Action 5 of the disarmament plan set out in the 2010 NPT review conference final document commits the nuclear weapons states to "accelerate concrete progress" on nuclear disarmament and to report in 2014. It is important that this be implemented. Work to achieve both objectives - full NPT implementation and steps towards a convention - should be mutually reinforcing. They should not distract from achieving implementation of agreed commitments by the nuclear weapons states. The 2015 review conference will take stock of progress and consider the next appropriate steps. This could, of course, encompass a nuclear weapons convention.

Much has been achieved by the NPT and the disarmament and non-proliferation regime built around it. However, we are still a considerable distance from where we all would like to be, that is, in a world free of nuclear weapons. It is important that the international community continue with this crucial work, which was launched by Frank Aiken in the late 1950s and which has given Ireland special prominence in the international efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. I assure the House that this will remain a top priority for the Government and I thank the House for its consistent support in this regard.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, which is set against the backdrop of an unenvisaged crisis of gargantuan proportions in the European economic and financial situation. It is appropriate that we would take time to consider the other major challenges facing the world community. I understand from the Government Whips that Deputy Eoghan Murphy has been pushing for a debate on this issue. I commend him, as this is an appropriate debate.

Ireland has a proud history of fighting to stem the prospect of nuclear proliferation across the globe. In the past 50 years, we have played a leading role in developing international agreements to reduce and eliminate the grave threat that nuclear weapons pose to the future of humanity. Under Taoiseach Éamon de Valera, Ireland developed a distinctive and positive foreign policy position that carved out a niche for us in world affairs as a strong, consistent advocate of nuclear disarmament. Looking back upon our work, we can see the role that we have played. We have the potential and moral obligation to continue to strive towards disarmament.

In November 1959 the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Frank Aiken, a man who had seen the devastation of war first hand in Ireland in the War of Independence and the Civil War, first proposed an international agreement to halt the increase in the number of nations with nuclear weapons, with the ultimate goal of achieving eventual complete disarmament. The United Nations General Assembly adopted the proposal in Resolution 1380 (XIV) which suggested:

That the ten-nation disarmament committee should consider appropriate means whereby this danger may be averted, including the feasibility of an international agreement, subject to inspection and control, whereby the powers producing nuclear weapons would refrain from handing over control of such weapons to any nation not possessing them and whereby the powers not possessing such weapons would refrain from manufacturing them.

It is these very principles that should continue to inform our foreign policy on nuclear proliferation today. The next year, again by the initiative and ongoing hard work of Mr. Frank Aiken, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1576 (XV) that called on the countries with nuclear weapons to voluntarily halt the proliferation of such devices. In 1961 the assembly adopted a further two resolutions, the first of which was Resolution 1664 initiated by Sweden about the conditions of the agreement. The second was Resolution 1665 (XVI), yet another Irish initiative led by Mr. Frank Aiken, to put the onus on those states with nuclear weapons to conclude an agreement.

In 1962 the world was brought to the precipice of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. The spectre of mass devastation at a single stroke was never as real and present as it was during the strained moments in October 1962. This serves as a reminder to us all of how fragile our world is in the nuclear age.

Moving on from that crucible of danger, Ireland continued to work towards establishing a framework to avert such future crisis points. On 1 July 1968 we witnessed the fruits of the labour of Irish foreign policy when, at separate ceremonies in London, Moscow and New York, representatives from 62 nations signed the treaty. Today 189 countries are party to the treaty, with four notable exceptions, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. The first three never ratified the treaty, whereas North Korea ratified it in 1985 but later withdrew.

More recently, Ireland played a prominent role at the 2010 review conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We undertook a strong role in the positive outcome of that conference in seeking significant achievements in nuclear disarmament that has been a key policy priority for successive Governments across the party spectrum. It is important that we recognise the staff of the disarmament and non-proliferation unit at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They have played a leading part in driving forward achievements at the conference and deserve credit for their work.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a major achievement of Irish foreign policy. It should remain the cornerstone of our efforts to play a positive role across the globe. The three pillars underpinning the treaty - nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses - are the key principles of Irish policy in this area and enjoy cross-party support. Looking at the problems that assail the world today and the continued prospect of nuclear arms spreading, much work still needs to be done. The growing prospect of Iran having nuclear ballistic capability is a major concern for the international community. I have had several discussions in committee with Iranian representatives who are adamant they are not involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction. However, they have a major job to do to convince the international community of this.

The Middle East is a tinder box of geopolitical tension. The volatility of the area sends ripples across the globe through shocks to the price of oil and the ongoing threat of terrorism. The immensely destabilising impact of the emergence of another nuclear power in the region, notably Iran, makes it highly dangerous. With the Arab Spring transforming the region, adding the highly disruptive impact of nuclear capability to an already volatile situation could be potentially disastrous.

At the 2010 conference Ireland's head of delegation, Ms Alison Kelly, chaired complex talks on the implementation of the 1995 Middle East resolution which called for an "effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems". This work needs to be focused on and emphasised. The 2012 conference on implementation of the zone is of paramount importance as it takes on a renewed sense of urgency as negotiations with Iran stall and deteriorate. The impact of EU sanctions on Iranian oil production from 1 July may help to spur progress, but the 20% uranium enrichment level reached by Iran brings the prospect of armed conflict closer.

There is a strong argument against attacking Iran to avoid damaging Iranian retaliation and in view of the inability of an attack to do more than just delay Iran's nuclear programme by a few years. Beyond this, an attack seems likely to create irresistible pressures in Iran to do everything possible to obtain a nuclear option with a renewed sense of urgency, as well as to disrupt the West's interests wherever possible and spur proxy wars through the Hizbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups across the globe.

Obviously, the creation of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East through diplomatic means should be our priority. The Department's nuclear non-proliferation unit is working with the facilitator of the 2012 conference and I trust the Minister is providing all help and experience from our own efforts in establishing a framework for brokering a deal and achieving real progress.

A key outstanding issue is the nuclear capacity of Israel, with an estimated 200 nuclear weapons which it has never publicly recognised. In this light, addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains central to addressing the existential concerns of Israel and its position in the Middle East. Our broader work in this area towards a peaceful two-state solution should sap the latent political anger across the region that the conflict occasionally causes to explode.

Looking at the world's two major nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, it is important that the international community continue to exert influence in reducing and ultimately eliminating their nuclear arsenal. The USA has approximately 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons, a massive reduction on the number at the height of the Cold War of 32,000, while Russia has 1,800 deployed warheads. Behind the deployed numbers, Russia has a total of 10,000 nuclear weapons, while the USA has 8,000. Despite the progress made for several years in the post-Cold War era, these numbers remain remarkably high. Negotiating nuclear disarmament with Russia and the USA and ensuring it is aquid pro quo reduction should be facilitated by the international community. The resetting of US-Russian relations under the US President, Mr. Obama, appears to have stalled with the re-election of the Russian President, Mr. Putin. The European Union should play a role in ensuring a deterioration in relations does not lead to the sidelining of the nuclear disarmament agenda.

In the late 1990s the Brookings Institute undertook an extensive study of how much money the United States had invested in developing its nuclear arsenal. In 1998 $35 billion was spent by it on its nuclear weapons. In a world racked by poverty, the value of moneys involved illustrates the moral need to switch our focus from developing weapons of mass destruction to more productive and humanitarian efforts. Across the party political divide, we would all agree we need to see a move from armaments to nourishment. Taxpayers' money must be diverted to areas in which it can be compassionately, reasonably and productively used.

Ireland can draw some strength and courage from its past work in this area. We can take pride in our achievements but, more importantly, harden our resolve to build on these past successes. The shadow of nuclear proliferation remains an existential threat to the future of humanity. The unimaginable consequences of nuclear war and the potential for switching the sums of money spent on nuclear weapons to more productive work should continue to drive on the moral impetus behind our stance on nuclear non-proliferation. Our past efforts show that our achievements were secured through close co-operation with a network of like-minded states and non-governmental organisations.

It was accomplished in the face of considerable opposition from some powerful nations and shows that, sometimes at least, small countries can still achieve big things. This attitude should continue to drive our efforts. I hope the 2012 conference on a nuclear-free Middle East bears testament to that.

It is important for us to have this useful debate, although it may have been better if we had thought about it on each side of the House and had a motion before us that we could all agree. That would have sent a very strong message from the Dáil to the world community that this country is completely committed to continuing its historic work towards a world free of the nuclear threat, and which places an emphasis on the value of humanity. The moral perspective of the Irish people dictates that the money available should be spent on saving lives rather than plans to take life. I wish the Tánaiste well in the work he is doing.

I also commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy, who is present, for proposing this important debate. Ireland has been at the heart of this issue in the past and can be again if we choose to do so. Ireland has a long and proud record on seeking to prevent nuclear proliferation. In 1958, when Mr. Frank Aiken was Minister for External Affairs, Ireland proposed the first UN resolution which sought to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. In 1961 the UN General Assembly unanimously approved an Irish resolution calling on all states, particularly the nuclear powers, to conclude an international agreement to refrain from transfer or acquisition of nuclear weapons. In 1968, when the non-proliferation treaty, NPT, was open for signature, Ireland was invited to be the first to sign in recognition of the part that Ireland had played in the international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

The NPT has been a success and few people would deny that it has been an effective brake on nuclear proliferation. Today, the NPT has 189 signatories with five of them - China, France, Russia, the UK and the US - as "nuclear weapon" states and the other 184 as "non-nuclear weapon" states. Under Article IX(3) of the treaty, states that exploded a nuclear weapon before 1967 qualify as "nuclear-weapon" states and are allowed to keep their nuclear weapons for now but must disarm eventually. Three states - India, Israel and Pakistan - refused to sign the NPT and secretly developed nuclear weapons. As these states chose to remain outside the NPT, they did not breach any treaty obligations by doing so. In addition, North Korea developed nuclear weapons while a party to the NPT but later withdrew from it.

Today, more than two decades after the end of the Cold War, there are upwards of 20,000 nuclear warheads in the world, according to the Federation of American Scientists. The vast bulk of these warheads are in the possession of the US and Russia, with approximately 5,000 warheads operational. There is a long way to go to bring about a world free of nuclear weapons, which President Obama talked about in his speech in Prague in April 2009.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US and Russia have significantly reduced their nuclear stockpiles, and so has the UK. However, it cannot be said that these or the other "nuclear-weapon" states have fulfilled their disarmament obligations under Article VI of the treaty. This states, "Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." None of the five states that possessed nuclear weapons before 1967 and were therefore allowed to join the NPT as "nuclear-weapon" states has disarmed. All of them have still got nuclear weapons and have continuously modernised their systems. There is no sign whatsoever of any of them giving up their nuclear weapons.

Is this fair to all those states that have signed up to the NPT as "non-nuclear weapon" states and undertaken not to acquire nuclear weapons? The five NPT members that possessed nuclear weapons in 1967 retain them despite their undertaking to engage in "nuclear disarmament". In addition, the NPT is not universal. The three states of India, Israel and Pakistan have engaged in nuclear proliferation on a grand scale outside the NPT but they have not been subject to the kind of sanctions now being applied to Iran, which has no nuclear weapons. It is true that all three states used to be in the international nuclear dog house in the sense that they were unable to purchase nuclear material and equipment from the rest of the world, which made it difficult for them to expand their civil nuclear programmes. In July 2005, the Bush Administration signed the US-India nuclear agreement, an initiative which has lead to India being taken out of the dog house; it is now free to engage in international nuclear commerce while retaining and developing its nuclear weapons. India has, in effect, become the world's sixth officially recognised nuclear power.

As a member of the nuclear suppliers group, NSG, of states, Ireland played a small part in India's elevation. On 6 September 2008, it consented to the amendment of the NSG guidelines to make an exception for India and allow that country alone to import nuclear material and equipment without all its nuclear facilities being subject to International Atomic Energy Agency inspection. The NSG operates by consensus and theoretically Ireland could have prevented such an extraordinary anomaly being introduced into its guidelines but it did not. Ironically, the NSG came into being in 1974 as a result of India developing and testing a nuclear device using plutonium from a reactor imported from Canada for civil purposes.

The UK is currently upgrading its nuclear weapons and the Trident submarines to deliver them. The new system is planned to provide the UK with an operational nuclear weapons capability until 2050 and beyond. It is instructive to consider the arguments that have been made to justify the vast expenditure involved. A White Paper published by the Labour Government in December 2006 asserted that the UK must have nuclear weapons "to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means". Last Monday, the UK Minister responsible for defence, Conservative MP Philip Hammond, told the House of Commons that "The possession of a strategic nuclear deterrent has ensured this country's safety. It ensured that we saw off the threat in the Cold War and it will ensure our security in the future." On the same occasion, Labour MP Ms Alison Seabeck echoed Hammond, stating "In a security landscape of few guarantees, our independent nuclear deterrent provides us with the ultimate insurance policy, strengthens our national security and increases our ability to achieve long-term global security aims."

I quote these arguments to show that it is very unlikely that Britain will ever give up its nuclear weapons, as it is supposed to do according to Article VI of the NPT. The arguments used are relevant not just for today but arguably for all time. British politicians will always be able to justify the continued possession of nuclear weapons "to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against vital interests that cannot be countered by other means", and the same applies to every other nuclear weapons state.

In one sense, nuclear weapons are "the ultimate insurance policy"; states that possess these are less likely to get attacked, at least by other states. We can consider what has happened to the three states that President Bush declared to "constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world" in his 2002 state of the union address. Iraq, which did not possess nuclear weapons, was invaded by the US and the UK in March 2003 and its regime was overthrown. Iran, which does not possess nuclear weapons, is continuously threatened with military action by the US and Israel and may yet be attacked. However, the US has not threatened to use force against North Korea because it has at least a rudimentary nuclear weapons system.

When North Korea exploded a nuclear device in May 2009, after initial condemnation the country was invited to take part in further negotiations. There is an important lesson there for states that do not possess nuclear weapons; if they want to be free from "the threat or use of force", which is supposed to be prohibited by Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, if at all possible, they should get at least a rudimentary nuclear weapons system.

I recommend to the Tánaiste that he read the pamphlet issued by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, led by Mr. Roger Cole, a member of the Labour Party. It was drawn up by Dr. David Morrison, a respected and eminent expert in the field, and offers some balanced comments on the situation in Iran and the Middle East. It points out that the United States and its allies which claim they want to see the Middle East free from nuclear weapons are applying ferocious economic sanctions and threatening military action against Iran which has not got a single nuclear weapon and its nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspections. However, they are utterly opposed to applying sanctions to Israel, despite its possession of perhaps as many as 400 nuclear warheads and its the ability to deliver them by aircraft, ballistic missile and submarine-launched cruise missiles and wipe off the map any capital in the Middle East and probably much further afield and its nuclear facilities are almost entirely closed to the IAEA. Far from sanctioning Israel, the United States gives it over $3 billion a year in military aid and, despite an enormous budget deficit, the amount has increased every year under the Obama Administration, as the President was at pains to emphasise in his speech to AIPAC on 4 March. More US tax dollars go to Israel than to any other state.

A double standard is being applied to Iran and Israel in this regard. The United States and its allies frequently state that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, this will inevitably lead to the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons the Middle East. That, they state, is one of the reasons Iran must not be allowed to acquire them. It is rarely mentioned that, because of Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons, Iran and other states in the region would be within their rights to withdraw from the NPT and develop nuclear weapons as Israel which never signed the NPT has done without breaching international obligations.

The Irish branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has pointed out that while Irish foreign policy has always strongly endorsed nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, this is not matched by Irish financial policies. The National Pension Reserve Fund, according to its 2011 report, has investments of at least €23 million in international arms companies which produce single use components for the nuclear weapons industry. AIB which is in majority state ownership lent $28 million to an American company involved in the nuclear weapons industry in 2010. Other countries which play a leading role in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament such as Norway and New Zealand prohibit the investment of state funds in companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry. There is a similar ban in Ireland on investments in companies engaged in the landmine and cluster munitions industries but not in the nuclear weapons industry.

Irish CND made six recommendations, which I endorse. Ireland, despite the current economic difficulties, should continue to play a leading role in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. It should take a lead in working for a nuclear weapons convention, together with other like-minded states. It should continue to support the processes and frameworks of the non-proliferation treaty but must be prepared to go beyond the NPT to address its weaknesses. It should engage with NGOs such as the International Red Cross-Red Crescent and like-minded states to apply international humanitarian law to achieve a ban on nuclear weapons. It should support a multilateral approach to easing the nuclear tensions in the Middle East. It should ban investments in companies involved in the nuclear arms industry by State funds and financial institutions based in the State.

The difficulty with the NPT is that while it has had a considerable impact in preventing the further proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction that pose an existential threat to the world, unbelievable double standards are at play. The five NPT states that have nuclear weapons and are permitted to keep them - the permanent members of the UN Security Council - can prevent a real removal of these weapons. As they hold a veto on the UN Security Council, there cannot be a UN Security Council resolution. While these double standards are in place, it undermines our moral credibility when trying to engage with states we are trying to persuade not to develop nuclear weapons.

We were leaders in this process when it started and have a great deal of credibility in the field. We still have neutral status, even though the use of Shannon Airport has undermined this. We are respected by the various players, particularly now, and could make an intervention to assist the process with Iran. We are respected by the United States and in Europe as honest brokers. I would volunteer that we are also respected by Iran as honest brokers. Could we not assist the process to reach its conclusion? These are the opportunities and the Government has stated it would like to reinstate Ireland's global reputation. We have a great reputation in the defence of human rights, in this field and overseas development. We must reassert ourselves in these spaces and use the credibility and legacy we enjoy to address these issues.

In February I chaired a meeting when Ms Maria Gomez, a human rights activist from Bolivia, was in the country. She campaigns with the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament which has a membership of more than 800 parliamentarians from 80 countries. This is an important movement for parliamentarians that provides information on nuclear disarmament issues and resolutions, motions and questions in parliaments around the globe. It is an important forum for developing strategies on this topic. It is good, therefore, that we are having this debate.

In 2011 there was a call for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. There are examples of parliamentarians helping to establish nuclear weapon-free zones in Antarctica, Latin America, the Caribbean, the South Pacific and Africa. These zones were difficult to achieve, particularly where countries were involved in nuclear testing. The experience, however, is one of overcoming difficulties and the call is to develop security without nuclear weapons. The Zimbabwean Minister for Education, Culture, Sports and Arts praised this initiative and saw what was achieved in Africa as a building block towards common security and a nuclear weapons-free world. He made the point that the €100 billion spent annually on nuclear weapons should instead be dedicated to addressing economic and social needs, including education, health, housing, jobs, water, food, fair policies on the environment and poverty reduction.

There are other positive developments on this topic that give us an opportunity as legislators to be forceful. International humanitarian law covers weaponry and prohibits the use of weapons or methods of warfare that cause indiscriminate harm to civilians, unnecessary suffering to combatants or long-term and severe damage to the environment. We know this continues in spite of international humanitarian law; therefore, putting it on paper is one thing but implementing it is another. It requires basic respect for law.

Ireland played a significant role in the landmine and cluster munitions treaties. The blueprint is in place with these initiatives for the achievement of a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. Other positive moves in 2010 were the parties to the non-proliferation treaty coming to an agreement that all states must comply with applicable humanitarian law, including international law, and acknowledge that any use of nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The NPT consensus final document called on all nuclear weapon states to undertake concrete disarmament efforts - the key word being "concrete" - towards establishing the necessary framework to establish and maintain a world without nuclear weapons. The Vancouver Declaration, Law's Imperative for the Urgent Achievement of a Nuclear Weapon-Free World, following a conference of international law experts, was issued in February 2011. In October 2011 leading NGOs launched a nuclear abolition forum to facilitate dialogue to bring this about. Also, the International Red Cross-Red Crescent adopted a resolution on the irreconcilability of nuclear weapons and humanitarian law. It is imperative that we continue to work towards an international agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons that will be legally binding.

It is also positive that more than three quarters of the world has voted in favour of the UN resolution calling for commencement of negotiations leading to the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. This has support across a wide spectrum, including even from countries that possess such weapons. Perhaps they are paying lip service to the notion but they have signed it anyway. The international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons has noted that nations that support a ban comprise 21% of the world's population. Why has there not been more progress on getting to a world free of such weapons? This leads one to ask why countries want nuclear weapons. Who would want an instrument that could blow the world to smithereens, including the country that possesses the weapon?

We constantly talk about living in challenging times though we are usually referring to economics, climate change or population growth but the threat of annihilation through nuclear war remains serious. One country claims that having a nuclear weapon is a deterrent from attack and seeks it as a safety net but that will not work because it incites other countries to acquire the same weapons, which means we will then find ourselves in the middle of an arms race. If one country has a weapon, it acts as an incentive and throws down the gauntlet to those that do not. The Middle East is fragile and volatile and, therefore, the last thing it needs is further escalation in nuclear weapons building. There are concerns about Iran's uranium enrichment programme but a suggestion to use pre-emptive force against its facilities could be a trigger for a ferocious war. Even calling for strengthened sanctions against Iran is not conducive to maintaining peace. Diplomatic action, not military action, is needed.

The threat of force is also counterproductive because one cannot beat fire with fire. Another aspect of this, which is similar to the pot calling the kettle black or saying "Do as I say but not as I do" is the entire focus is on Iran while the nuclear weapon programmes of its neighbours are ignored, which is hypocritical. It would be better for all to support the UN process to establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, made a speech on this issue two years ago during which he stated: "The momentum is building towards a nuclear weapon free world". That has gone off the boil but he mentioned another contradiction. Countries that have increased their military spending have, at the same time, introduced cuts to social security, health and environmental protection. Having a nuclear arms free world, far from adding to international peace and security, is putting them in jeopardy. He called on governments to reveal the extent of their nuclear arsenals.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I attended a meeting on 1 March which was addressed by the former Canadian senator, Douglas Roche, the founding chairman of Middle Powers Initiative, a group of eight international NGOs. Their mission statement is dedicated to worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons in a series of well defined stages accompanied by increasing verification and control. He very much acknowledged Ireland's role in the non-proliferation treaty and its commitment to nuclear disarmament. He sees the world moving to a new stage in efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and he feels economic realities are making them unaffordable but that is not borne out by the $100 million being spent annually on these arms. In the same breath, he said the UN Secretary General and President Obama have tried to lead the way to a nuclear weapons free world but the US contributes $50 billion annually to such weapons. The issue of the use of drones by the US and Great Britain to fire indiscriminately at targets with the loss of civilian life in many cases must be tackled. Mr. Roche thinks the major states were less than lukewarm about taking this on. There is, therefore, a body of thought that looks on nuclear weapons as a deterrent to exerting power. They might go along with some reduction but elimination is either not on the agenda or not just yet. Mr. Roche mentioned the convoluted logic whereby countries see safety from nuclear weapons as depending on their deployment and feel deprived if they do not have these arsenals at their disposal. He also made a reference, which has not been addressed, to the theft of nuclear material, particularly from former Soviet Union countries.

We are aware of the damage and destruction nuclear weapons can do. I support the calls to ensure State funds are not invested in companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry, including in Ireland. We should continue to support the non-proliferation treaty and work towards the nuclear weapons convention. Perhaps there is a reason now to reopen our embassy in Teheran in order that we can continue to work with Iran.

I commend Deputy Murphy for proposing the debate, which is very much welcome, as this is an important subject on which we should make our voice heard. I strongly welcome the Minister's commitment to uphold a proud tradition in this country of opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and playing an important international role in seeking to prevent the proliferation of such weapons and to bring about nuclear disarmament, hopefully to move us as quickly as possible to a world free of such weapons.

I suspect the majority of people in the House and in the world believe nuclear weapons are an utter obscenity. I find it difficult to comprehend the mindset that came up with such weapons or that states would wish to develop weapons with this obscene destructive power. Following the horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima where hundreds of thousands of people were vaporised in an instant and the entire cities laid waste in a few seconds, the notion that any state could claim to be interested in democracy, peace, stability and progressive values while involved in promoting, developing or threatening the use of these weapons is appalling. The madness of nuclear weapons is even more starkly highlighted in the current economic crisis faced by the world where vast numbers of people across the globe, including in Europe, are living in poverty and lack sufficient access to basic public services. While states claim they do not have the money to provide them, in excess of $1 trillion a year is spent on weapons, a considerable amount of which is spent on maintaining nuclear arsenals and producing nuclear weapons and the various industries used to develop them.

We must do everything we can to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons. The Minister is correct that every effort must be made to ensure states that are considering the development of nuclear weapons, outside of those that have them, do not do so whether that is Iran, Syria or any other country. I do not believe claims that countries are trying to prevent nuclear proliferation has great credibility when they fail to deal with the enormous issue of double standards on the part of the main nuclear states and the largest powers in the world, including the US, Russia, China, Britain and France. The other states that have developed nuclear weapons such as North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel could not have done so without the assistance, co-operation and involvement of the major nuclear states.

If we are serious in confronting this issue, we must address the hypocrisy and double standards in our attitudes to the major powers and their refusal to dismantle their own nuclear arsenals. The Tánaiste referred in his speech to the many specific requirements being imposed on Iran to comply with the non-proliferation treaty and the demands of the International Atomic Energy Authority, but there are no similar demands made of Israel. I do not understand the double standards that operate in regard to that country. It has 200 to 400 nuclear weapons but refuses to sign up to the NPT, which, incidentally, Iran has signed up to and is compliant with. There is no credible evidence that the latter is seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capacity, yet it is subjected to threats of military attack while nothing is done about Israel. Last year the United States increased its annual military aid contribution to Israel from $3 billion to $4 billion and has, in recent years, made arrangements to take nuclear waste from the country. We do not know where waste from the Dimona nuclear reactor is going, but many in Palestine suspect that at least some of it is being dumped under Gaza and Hebron, areas with large Palestinian populations. The credibility of this State is seriously undermined by the involvement of companies based here in the production of components for the nuclear weapons industry and the arms industry generally. We disgrace ourselves further by continuing to facilitate United States warplanes involved in brutal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Ireland's stance on this important issue. Since the late 1950s, this country has been actively engaged in the diplomacy of nuclear non-proliferation. Joining the United Nations gave Ireland the opportunity to express a more positive and assertive neutrality. One of the high points of this strategy was the role played by the State in encouraging the General Assembly to take a position on the question of nuclear non-proliferation, or as it was referred to by the UN, "non-dissemination of nuclear weapons".

For a small state, Ireland has played a considerable role in securing agreement on a formula that clearly identified the problem and put in motion a strategy for dealing with it. For his strenuous efforts in this regard, the exceptional work conducted by a former representative in this House of County Louth, the late Frank Aiken`, should be acknowledged. He has the distinguished record of being the second longest sitting Deputy, with in excess of 50 years service in the Oireachtas. Under Ireland's policy of promoting the primacy of international law and reducing global tensions at the height of the Cold War, Mr. Aiken promoted the idea of areas of law, which helped to free the most tense regions around the world from the threat of nuclear war. In addition, he sponsored the resolution to prevent the so-called wider dissemination of nuclear weapons and proposed peace initiatives for the crisis in the Middle East.

It was Mr. Aiken, as Minister for External Affairs, who put forward the notion of a non-proliferation treaty at the United Nations in 1958, and a further series of Irish-sponsored resolutions led to the signing of the NPT in 1968. Ireland was the first country to sign and ratify the treaty, which entered into force in 1970. The NPT is built around three key pillars, namely, non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to peaceful deployment of nuclear energy. A five-yearly review conference, last held in 2010, monitors its ongoing implementation. At a meeting in Dublin in June 1998, Ireland became one of the founding members of the New Agenda Coalition, NAC, which now comprises Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden. The NAC has played an important role in bringing proposals to the five-yearly NPT review conference. On 9 June 1998, an 18 point declaration, Towards a Nuclear Weapons-Free World: The Need for a New Agenda, was signed by the governments of the NAC countries.

Current proliferation challenges facing the NPT include regional issues in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria, lack of universal adherence to the NPT by India, Israel and Pakistan, and the lack of full co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Authority and its safeguards and verification system by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria. In addition, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, CTBT, has yet to enter into force and a treaty banning fissile materials remains to be negotiated. Ireland is a strong supporter of efforts to implement the Middle East resolution, agreed at the 1995 NPT review and extension conference. Agreed as part of a package deal which also included the indefinite extension of the NPT, the resolution calls for the establishment of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the region. In 2010, Ireland brokered agreement on a text reaffirming the resolution and setting out several practical next steps.

Ireland has decided not to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as part of its energy mix and is of the view that those states which do must demonstrate the exclusively peaceful nature of their programmes. My constituents are all too aware of the nuclear threat, with both Dundalk and Drogheda being closer to the Thorp nuclear plant in Sellafield than is, for example, London. The emergence of cancer clusters in Louth has been linked to the wind flows from the Sellafield plant. On a global level,The Irish Times ran an article last week which suggested that Iran is designing a nuclear submarine. The nuclear threat is ever present and it is incumbent on us all to continue the good work initiated by my fellow Louth man, the late Mr. Aiken. For the good of all mankind, we must fervently support the principle of nuclear disarmament.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. There is absolutely no moral or political excuse for any country to have nuclear weapons. They are always utterly unjustifiable. As such, it is an international disgrace that countries continue to spend billions of euro and dollars on these weapons while so many people throughout the world are cold and hungry. That is the core of this debate. Ireland has always taken a leading position on this issue on the international stage. We should now take an even stronger position and provide further leadership by working in conjunction with countries that share our world vision. There are elements in this society and in this Government that would, given half a chance, have us all in the nuclear club. It is up to Deputies of all parties and none to stand firm on this issue.

I support the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. How can anybody who calls to mind what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki take a different view? Some of our world leaders are living on another planet when it comes to this issue and must be challenged everywhere, including in the Dáil, at the United Nations and at European Union level. The Government must take the challenge to the international stage. I support non-violent campaigns to rid the world of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction with a view to ensuring genuine security for future generations. I oppose all nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, their development, manufacture, testing, deployment and threatened use by any country. I would like to see four simple things happen. I would like to see the elimination of all nuclear weapons by our nearest neighbour, Britain, not to mention the global abolition of nuclear weapons; the abolition of other weapons of mass destruction with indiscriminate effect; a nuclear-free, a less militarised and more secure Europe, and a broader debate on the nuclear power industry, a debate from which we seem to run away.

It is important Independent Deputies express their views, which are not always against everything. I always bring forward constructive proposals. I would like to change Government policies as a major contribution to bring about the global elimination of nuclear weapons. I would like to see a wider public debate on the need for alternatives to the nuclear cycle and military attempts to resolve conflict. I would like to empower the people to engage actively in the political process to work for a nuclear free and peaceful future. I would like to co-operate with groups in Ireland, at UN and EU levels and internationally to ensure greater mutual security. These are core and important issues in the debate.

I mention the misinformation in recent weeks on the topical issue of Iran's nuclear activities. The United States, its European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear programme: Teheran does not have a bomb, it has not decided to build one and it is probably years from having a deliverable nuclear warhead. From my point of view, Iran has no nuclear weapons. I met the Iranian ambassador recently and received a commitment from him on that issue. Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. The supreme leader of Iran, whether we agree or disagree with him or like his politics, said that as far as he was concerned, the possession of weapons was a grave sin. The November 2011 report of the IAEA did not claim Iran had a nuclear weapons programme. Iran is not in breach of any obligation under the NPT. Uranium enrichment is Iran's inalienable right under the NPT. The United States and its allies are trying to deny Iran its right to uranium enrichment under the treaty. These are the facts. Iran's nuclear facilities are open to regular inspection but Israel's are not. That seems to be the elephant in the room and the silence in Europe is deafening.

A double standard is being applied in regard to the possession of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Iran which has none is the subject of ferocious economic sanctions and the threats of military action. Sadly, the Government seems to be silent on this issue. Israel which has as many as 400 weapons and the ability to deliver them to any capital in the Middle East is the beneficiary of more than $3 billion in military aid. How many houses and schools could be provided and how many homeless people and Palestinians could be helped with this money? That is the question we must raise. The United States, Israel and others which are threatening military action against Iran are in breach of Article 2.4 of the UN charter which requires all UN member states to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This is something we should highlight.

It is important that Ireland, as an independent and neutral state which is highly respected on the international stage, given its history and anti-colonial past, use its clout. I know from talking to ambassadors from Argentina, Cuba and elsewhere that they have great respect for Ireland, but they also expect it to act as a peace broker. That is something at which we should look.

In recent days we witnessed the row about the Malvinas with Argentina. We should say to Britain that it should go to the United Nations to try to resolve the issue. We should not be namby-pamby, walk away and issue press releases. I was very disappointed with Mr. David Cameron's stance in recent days on the Malvinas. I know where I stand on the issue and others know too, given what I call the islands.

Ireland has the potential to be a nuclear and peace broker on the international stage. That is why we want a strong and decisive Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. We want leadership, commitment and determination, which reflects their views. Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme.

I would like to bring forward some proposals on what Ireland can do because it is all very well to give out about things. Ireland, despite its economic difficulties, should continue to pay a leading role in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. It should take the lead in working for a nuclear weapons convention, together with other like-minded states. It should be used as a base for debates and conferences. We should bring international peace activitists here and use our clout. Ireland should continue to support the processes and frameworks of the non-proliferation treaty, but it must be prepared to move beyond the NPT to address the treaty's weaknesses which it should pick out and get on with it. It should engage with NGOs such as the International Red Cross and the International Red Crescent and like-minded states to apply international humanitarian law to achieve a ban on nuclear weapons. It should also support a multilateral approach to easing the nuclear tensions in the Middle East. That is where we can come on the pitch and deliver. Ireland should ban investments by State funds and financial institutions based here in companies involved in the nuclear arms industry.

We have a glorious opportunity. The Tánaiste has said Ireland has pursued a policy of complete opposition to nuclear weapons and that this policy has enjoyed strong cross-party political support in this House, which is very important. However, we need to up our game in this regard. We need to say on the international stage that Ireland stands for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Ireland should look at the economic argument also. What is the logic in spending billions of euro and dollars on building nuclear weapons, the vast majority of which, thankfully or I hope, will never be used when there are areas of the world which need massive investment and in which people are starving? This issue must be linked in the debate.

Article 29.1 of the Constitution states, "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality". We should demand on the international stage an end to spending on, and the elimination of, nuclear weapons.

When Oppenheimer saw the results of his first test of the atomic bomb he had helped to create, he said, "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds." He was quoting from a Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita. It cuts directly to much of what we are speaking about and why we are discussing this important issue.

Every year on 6 August a small group of people gather by a cherry blossom tree in Merrion Square. The tree was planted in 1980 to commemorate the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It was planted by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Ireland. I recognise the good works of Mr. David Hutchinson Edgar and CND in Ireland and all they have done to date to keep this issue to the fore. I was honoured to speak at this event a few years ago when I was a councillor and have attended it since as a Deputy. It is not a very large group. Generally, the same people attend year after year and they are usually a little older than me. The Japanese ambassador attends as an invited guest. The ambassadors from the nuclear weapons states are invited, although none has attended when I have. Given the number who attend, their age profile and how quietly this event takes place, one would think we were commemorating an event that took place a long time ago. No one would think that this was still a problem which confronted us and I should not be interested in this issue because the potential threat of the use of nuclear weapons and their existence should no longer be a problem in that people older, wiser and more experienced than me should have solved it by now such that it should no longer be on the agenda and considered as important an issue. No one is really taking an active interest, apart from the diehards who are very good and committed. It is dangerous, however, that this issue is not to the fore in our debates and discussions, as it ought be, because, as the threat recedes from our memories and the collective subconscious, it becomes more real.

My interest is accidental. I began by studying conflict resolution and ended up studying weapons proliferation, a subject which fascinated me. I was fascinated because I saw how nuclear weapons had shaped international history and continued to shape international relations. I was also fascinated by the important role Ireland had always played in this sphere. I knew nothing about this until I studied it. I retained an interest in the subject and, after leaving university, worked in the area for four years, before coming a politician. At the conference on disarmament in Geneva I was fortunate enough to have time to work with the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in Vienna. I was always very interested in how visionary, bold and ambitious Ireland was. During the formation and implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, the cornerstone of our non-proliferation and disarmament efforts and regime, Ireland was the world leader and a visionary. The treaty began with Ireland, that is, with Mr. Frank Aiken in the 1950s. He had a very real and prescient concern that one day the weapons would disseminate to terrorists. This trend continued in the 1990s when, as visionaries and leaders, we formed the New Agenda Coalition. In the conference to review the NPT in 2000 we agreed on 13 practical steps towards nuclear weapons disarmament. We cannot say we have been and continue to be world leaders and visionaries on very many major international issues.

I thank the Tánaiste and the Whips for agreeing to this debate and allowing time to discuss the matter. I had sought a discussion on it through the Whip who recognised immediately its importance. That is why we are discussing it today. It is important because some of the key tensions in the world concern the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation or the continued existence of nuclear weapons and the failure to achieve the nuclear disarmament objectives that we all sought to achieve when we opened the NPT for signature in the 1960s. We must bear in mind the Cold War tensions that are resurfacing in Europe over proposed missile shields and new missiles, tensions in the Middle East and the growing isolation of Iran, the rush to war in Iraq and its aftermath, and the North Korean regime's breaking of almost all of the remaining taboos on nuclear weapons, including that on testing, as it attempts to ape some of its neighbours and perceived rivals. We must note the dangers posed by the possession of nuclear weapons by unstable governments. We are not sure how the coming to power of a new government could lead to increased tensions. We envisage possible arms racing on the subcontinent. That is just the present set of circumstances, which is wholly separate from the considerable damage nuclear weapons and their existence have caused for human life since they were first invented. In this regard, we must bear in mind the people living on the Polynesian islands who were displaced and affected by testing in the 1950s and later; the victims the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings; the victims on theRainbow Warrior; and the victims dying of hunger in North Korea today because that country’s regime has decided to spend so much money in trying to create a weapon it could almost certainly never use.

As many Deputies have outlined, Ireland has had a good reputation historically. It is only right that the Dáil consider these matters in order that our strong record and independent voice can continue. It is only right also that we all be given an opportunity to contribute to this most important of debates in which I welcome all contributions. We must recognise that, as parliamentarians, we have a different role from that of the Government. This is true in all modern democracies, which is why we have the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a union between countries for parliamentarians and elected officials to promote issues separate from those of their governments. The PNND, which was mentioned, promotes this objective.

I was heartened to hear the Tánaiste respond so positively recently to the international joint parliamentary statement on a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. I recognise all the good work our diplomats are doing and have done in this sphere, particularly for the NPT review conference in 2010 and our work in seeking to secure a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. In this regard, our work is incredibly important. Our efforts in the Dáil and those of the Government are very much aligned. We now begin the process of preparing for the NPT review conference in 2015. The first preparatory committee meeting was held recently, at the end of April. So much needs to be done. Members' contributions and the points they regarded as important indicate that a huge range of issues needs to be addressed. However, if we are to expect the non-proliferation pillar of the NPT to remain standing and robust, we must work on the key pillar of disarmament. We still have the capacity to destroy all human life on this planet many times over. If we do not continue in our pursuit of disarmament and achieve greater reductions in nuclear arsenals, that threat will not change. We face the risk of new countries entering the nuclear club and existing members advancing their arsenals rather than reducing them. We must, therefore, bring disarmament centre-stage if we are to have a chance of making progress with countries such as Iran and North Korea and if we are ever to hope those outside the treaty who possess nuclear weapons will sign up to the disarmament principles therein.

Ireland, as part of the New Agenda Coalition, helped to negotiate the 13 practical steps in 2000. The very first of these steps was seeking a commitment to bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, CTBT. By banning the testing of nuclear weapons, possible new entrants will be kept from becoming nuclear powers and existing members cannot introduce new weapons into their arsenals. A ban on testing means no new nuclear weapons and no new nuclear weapon states. If we are to get rid of these weapons, that is where we must start. We have started on this path and started well. The CTBT has been signed by 183 countries. Its verification system of 337 stations around the globe, ensuring compliance with its provisions, is in place. It has its headquarters in Vienna, where I worked and the executive secretary, Mr. Tibor Tóth, and his team are tirelessly working in pursuit of the treaty's goals. Good people are working hard for the betterment of us all and the Government is working with them. It is important to recognise this. Apart from North Korea, no country has tested or exploded a nuclear device in 14 years. The norm against nuclear weapons testing is established and robust. Regrettably, however, the treaty is not yet in force. Bearing in mind the complicated ratification procedures, eight states must yet ratify the treaty for it to become international law. These are China, Egypt, North Korea, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the United States. Entry into force of the CTBT is the next logical, practical and possible step in the nuclear disarmament race.

Let us be visionaries again. Let us have a singular goal as we work towards the review conference in 2015. In the same way as 1995 is remembered for the indefinite extension of the treaty, as 2000 is for the 13 practical steps, let 2015 be remembered for the achieving of the entry into force of the CTBT. Let Ireland be remembered with it, which might sound ambitious to some. To others, however, it will not be ambitious enough. We can do it; let us, at least, try. All we can do is try, and if we fail, no matter, we can try again - fail again, fail better. It behoves us, given our history in this area and our great responsibility on the world stage in the efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament, to work towards our singular goal.

Tomorrow will see the official opening of Ireland's national data centre in the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, as referred to by the Tánaiste. National data centres around the world form part of the global alarm system that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization has been building. Opening the national data centre reaffirms our commitment to being part of this very important verification regime, which is very welcome. We are and always have been part of the system. It is now time to start shaping it again.

I am sharing time with Deputy Anne Ferris.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter. Ireland is viewed internationally as a distinguished and credible advocate for nuclear disarmament and supporter of non-proliferation. During the Cold War it was a progressive voice in the international sphere for disarmament. While superpowers were stockpiling vast nuclear arsenals and other states retained nuclear weapons programmes or continued to develop secret ones, Ireland worked in the multilateral forum of the United Nations to rid the world of this scourge.

Ireland has consistently punched above its weight on the nuclear issue. From the time of Mr. Frank Aiken's Irish resolutions in the 1950s and 1960s to the formation of the New Agenda Coalition in 1998 and the skilled diplomacy of the Irish delegation that led to the reaffirmation of the Middle East resolution at the 2010 NPT review conference, Ireland has played a positive role. This is one area in which Ireland's international reputation remains strong and credible. However, our reputation is not something we can rest on; we need to maintain it year in, year out and build on it. Ireland needs to remain a strong voice for international nuclear disarmament and a vocal critic of nuclear proliferation.

This means not only must we criticise rogue states for pursuing nuclear weapons programmes, but also we should ask difficult questions of our allies who are dragging their heels on nuclear disarmament.

We must also remain a strong advocate for rigorous inspection programmes. If a state has a peaceful nuclear programme, then that state needs to allow full-scale International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, and there should be no exceptions. Approximately 30 countries have developed nuclear power for energy purposes and this, too, has its dangers, as we witnessed in Japan last year with the meltdown at the Fukushima plant.

Unlike many of our European neighbours, Ireland does not pursue nuclear energy, as would be our right under the terms of the NPT. Our energy mix remains nuclear free and I strongly hope it remains so. Some commentators have used the current economic challenges this country faces to advocate a move towards nuclear energy. I am glad this is gaining little or no traction with the public. Ireland must remain nuclear free. The programme for Government calls on us to develop our own domestic renewable energy potential through exploiting our wind and geothermal resources. This is where this country's future lies for energy.

Even the best regulated nuclear energy facilities can produce environmental disasters, as was evident in the meltdown of the Fukushima plant. Prior to this disaster Japan was seen as the gold standard for nuclear regulation. Nuclear energy is not worth the risk. The environmental, ecological, and human risks are too great.

Ireland is on the right sight of the nuclear divide: no to weapons, no to developing weapons and no to nuclear energy. We need to continue to spread this message beyond our own shores. The very existence of nuclear weapons brings a perpetual insecurity to our fragile planet. We need to move towards a world without nuclear weapons and Ireland must continue to lead the way.

I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to examine the merits of a nuclear weapons convention, not as a replacement of the NPT but as a logical conclusion to the NPT's aims. The world requires a binding legal covenant which would provide for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. I am under no illusion this can be achieved in the short or even medium term, but the global elimination of nuclear weapons needs to be central to our disarmament policy.

I will conclude with the words of Uachtarán na hÉireann, Mr. Michael D. Higgins, who, in 2010 as a Labour Party Deputy, stated: "The aspiration for a nuclear weapons-free world contained in the NPT needs to be translated into reality with the emergence of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, saving the world from nuclear annihilation." This is the direction in which the world needs to move, and Ireland needs to provide the leadership.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter here today. The issue of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is one on which Ireland can proudly say it has taken the lead in past times. As my colleague, Deputy Ryan, stated, the late Minister, Frank Aiken, in 1958, took the lead on this matter when he proposed a series of resolutions in the UN General Assembly. From these, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT, was developed.

Since its enactment in 1970, the NPT has become widely adopted by most countries around the world. Its three key pillars have been very beneficial in controlling the development of nuclear weapons and these are based around disarmament, non-proliferation and the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Indeed, the initial success of the treaty is that the original five recognised nuclear states, the United States, Russia, China, the UK and France, have ratified it and this has led to reductions.

Concerns have arisen, however, because of the acquisition of nuclear arms by India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, countries that have not ratified this treaty or, in the case of the latter, withdrawn from it. Indeed, Iran, which is a signatory to the NPT and has ratified it, has caused great controversy because of its nuclear developments.

The State regards nuclear disarmament as a priority and has been vocal on the matter since those early resolutions in 1958. In 1998, the New Agenda Coalition was founded in Dublin and a diverse group of countries came together for an 18 point declaration, entitled Towards a Nuclear Weapons-Free World: The Need for a New Agenda. Since then, it has been active in promoting the necessary steps towards full nuclear disarmament.

The weakness of the NPT is its lack of binding targets, and there are calls for a nuclear weapons convention. I am supportive of these calls. They seek to ban the manufacture, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons and would provide specific timeframes for disarmament. It is worth noting that this idea is supported by 146 countries and has the backing of the United Nations General Secretary, Mr. Ban Ki-moon.

I was quite surprised by information sent to me this week by the Irish CND which stated that AIB, in majority State ownership, lent $28 million to an American company involved in the nuclear weapons industry in 2010. This is disappointing. Countries such as Norway and New Zealand prohibit this type of investment, and Ireland should consider doing the same.

Though the NPT allows for stocks of uranium and plutonium to be used for peaceful purposes, I have deep reservations about the use of nuclear fuel for this purpose. The experience of having a near neighbour in the UK that has the Sellafield plant is not a pleasant one. For years I have been campaigning for the closure of this facility and I helped set up some years ago in County Wicklow the campaign to close Sellafield.

The history of this plant has highlighted repeatedly the dangers of its operations. There have been multiple instances where surrounding communities in the UK and in this country have been put in danger. Over the decades since its establishment there have been more than 20 incidents involving radiological release. The latest one, the Thorp plant leak in 2005, involved the leaking of more than 83,000 litres of radioactive material that evaded detection for in excess of nine months. What is more, over this long period of time, Sellafield has continuously discharged low level radioactive waste into the sea. Even though some of the radioactivity has been removed, the precipitate has still polluted the Irish Sea. The UK Government is taking steps to shut down this part of the plant, although, unfortunately, this will take at least six years and they will also be building a new plant in its place. Given the lack of competence in running the one at Sellafield, the idea of a new facility being built does not exactly fill me with confidence.

Disregarding my concerns on this particular matter, the NPT has been useful in past times, though it needs to be strengthened, with binding targets set. The idea of states being allowed to continue to develop weapons is not in anyone's interest and all efforts must be made to prevent it.

I am pleased to have a brief opportunity to participate in this debate. It has been a useful discussion, with clear interest and engagement from Members, and I very much welcome that. It is clear that the House's commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons is as strong as ever and I assure the House that the Government's commitment is equally strong.

I thank all Members for their helpful contributions, on which the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Government will reflect. No doubt we will have an opportunity to come back here to debate some of these issues in more detail, both here in plenary session and also at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade.

This is a policy area in which, it has been said, Ireland has always punched above its weight, and I think that is true. It is something which we should rightly be proud of, but not complacent about. Clearly, much is still required to be done and we are as determined as ever to ensure it is done.

During the 2015 NPT review cycle, which commenced recently with the first, largely procedural, preparatory committee meeting in Vienna, NPT state parties will take stock of how the 64 follow-on actions agreed at the 2010 review conference are being implemented. Over the next three years we will also decide where we would like the NPT to be in 2015 and we will work out how to get there. It is important we capitalise on the positive outcome of the 2010 review conference and build on that further in 2015.

Ireland will be among those countries seeking an ambitious outcome to the 2015 review conference, and as I have stated, we will be looking to the nuclear weapons states to build confidence in their stated commitment to disarm. Progress on disarmament will undoubtedly assist further progress on non-proliferation.

I assure the House that even in the context of our present difficult financial position, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation will remain a foreign policy priority for the Government. This is an area in which Ireland has historically made, and still can make, a difference. We can continue to do so at relatively little financial cost. Our disarmament team, at home and abroad, is by universal standards very small. We focus on those areas which we regard as a priority and where we can make a difference. We pursue them doggedly and with considerable determination, conviction and passion, and this will continue.

As I stated at the outset, strong political support for our policy in this area is important if Ministers and officials are to take forward positions on these issues in the relevant international fora. My Department is grateful to the House for the strong support, not only as expressed in this debate but over many years and, indeed, decades. We certainly do not take it for granted.

Sitting suspended at 3.10 p.m. and resumed at 3.42 p.m.
Barr
Roinn