Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 11 July 2012
2Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on whether Iran is entitled under Article IV (1) of the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty to engage in uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes on its own soil; and his further views on whether to deny Iran the right to uranium enrichment is to treat it as a second-class party to the NPT. [33732/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe nuclear non-proliferation treaty makes no specific reference to a right to engage in uranium enrichment. Article IV (1) of the treaty provides that states are entitled to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This entitlement must be exercised in conformity with Article II, under which non-nuclear-weapon states, including Iran, undertake not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Furthermore, each non-nuclear weapon state is obliged to accept IAEA safeguards with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful purposes to military purposes.
Iran has repeatedly failed to live up to its international treaty obligations and is in breach of a succession of Security Council and IAEA resolutions, including those that call for a suspension of its enrichment activities. A report issued by the IAEA last November concluded that there are grounds for serious concern about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme and indicated that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. In another report published in May, the agency indicated that it is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran and therefore cannot conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is used for peaceful activities.
The international community has consistently urged the Iranian Government to respect and fulfil its international obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and seriously and unconditionally engage in discussions aimed at confirming the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Ireland strongly supports this position.
There was great disappointment among those who defend Ireland's position of neutrality at the closure of our embassy in Tehran. Ireland was a driving force in the non-proliferation treaty and was one of the first states invited to sign it. It is unfortunate that we have supported sanctions against Iran which were advocated by the US, Britain and certain other European states.
The report prepared by the IAEA did not provide any evidence that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Indeed, US intelligence services have been unable to provide evidence that such a programme exists. It is clear that Iran is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Israel, however, is reputed to possess more than 400 nuclear warheads even while it increases its trade with the European Union. It is also the biggest beneficiary of state aid from the United States, receiving $3 billion per annum. Does the Tánaiste agree that double standards are being applied and that Iran has the right to develop a nuclear enrichment programme for peaceful purposes if it is fully supervised, as I am sure it will agree, by the IAEA? It is unreasonable for any state to argue otherwise.
The IAEA set out at some length its concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme in its report of 8 November. This report concluded that the available information indicates that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. Its most recent report, which was published in May, states that because Iran is not providing the necessary co-operation and is not implementing its additional protocol, the agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran and therefore cannot conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is used for peaceful activities. The Irish Government and our EU partners are satisfied that the IAEA's reports are credible and their conclusions must be taken seriously. The November report is based on information drawn from a wide variety of sources, including regular inspection visits by IAEA inspectors to Iran, and is deemed to be consistent in terms of technical content, individual and organisational involvement and timeframes. The IAEA is the international watchdog on these matters and has unrivalled technical expertise and a record of absolute impartiality and independence. Its report was the basis for the European Union's decision on sanctions, the objective of which was to bring Iran to the table to negotiate in a meaningful way in the E3+3 process.
Thankfully the talks appear to be moving towards a peaceful conclusion, although that may disappoint certain states in the region. These states may have ambitions for Iran which would not be shared by Ireland. Three experts, Professor Paul Pillar, who worked for the CIA for 28 years and could be accused of having a vested interest against the United States, Peter Jenkins, the UK ambassador to the IAEA between 2001 and 2006, and Hans Blix, the former head of the IAEA, have stated that the November report contains no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the evidence from inspectors on the ground does not back up the claim, which was contained in an appendix full of old allegations which have never been backed up by evidence.
We are bringing the region to the verge of catastrophic conflict because of somebody's agenda. I again ask the Tánaiste why Ireland supports sanctions against Iran despite a lack of evidence that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons at the same time as offering favourable trade agreements to Israel, which possesses more than 400 nuclear warheads. Why do we permit such double standards? How can Ireland call itself neutral while it takes this approach? We recently upgraded our trade relationship with Israel to allow its pharmaceutical businesses to avail of huge profits. We are rewarding Israel for its belligerent approach while severely punishing Iran without evidence. What good is the non-proliferation treaty when countries are rewarded for not signing up or making themselves accountable to the IAEA while others which seek to comply are punished? How can peace be served by such an approach?
The approach that Ireland is taking, in co-operation with other EU member states, is intended to avoid bringing the region to the brink of conflict. The objective of the sanctions was to persuade Iran to come to the negotiating table. We believe the Iranian nuclear issue can only be resolved through negotiation and agreement within the E3+3 process. As the Deputy has acknowledged, the negotiations have started. The negotiations held in Istanbul on 14 April were more constructive than previous discussions and held out the hope of a change of course on the part of Iran. Unfortunately, while Iran has engaged more seriously in two subsequent rounds of talks, it has concentrated on details and process while making no effort to work towards a solution. The impression given by the Iranian delegation is that it is authorised only to restate its position and is unable to seek solutions. A further round of talks is expected to follow technical meetings which will clarify details. I hope Iran will be ready to take significant and concrete steps to promote international confidence in its intentions.
As Iran is a party to the non-proliferation treaty it must live up to its obligations under the treaty. Israel is not a party to the treaty but we continue to urge it and other states to adhere to the treaty's terms as non-nuclear weapon states.
What about Yasser Arafat?
