Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Porposed US-India Nuclear Agreement: Motion - 30th January 2007

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Proposed US-India Nuclear Agreement: Motion - 30th January 2007
Senator Norris: Deputy Michael D. Higgins has done this committee a considerable service by putting forward today’s two motions, both of which are extremely important.
The Deputy referred to the contribution made by Dr. Piot. An analogy could be made with Dr. Piot’s work in that one of the insidious aspects of the use of nuclear energy for military purposes is the radiation sickness that results and the fact that it is not visible. The Deputy correctly analysed the dreadful dangers involved not just during the use of nuclear weapons but in the unpredictable consequences for many generations to come, which are invisible. We all remember Chernobyl and the fact that even in County Wicklow sheep were affected. We did not see anything, we were unaware of any change, it was a day like any other, and yet livestock were affected by it.
In this country we have an important historical claim on this treaty. Mr. Frank Aiken promoted it at the United Nations and this is something of which all of us from all parties can be proud. Deputy Mulcahy has played an important role in this and has consistently pushed the matter. We must be grateful to both representatives here and pay tribute to the part Fianna Fáil played. Deputy Mulcahy said it is not quite as simple as that, and while that is true, there is danger in taking too sophisticated an approach. India is an enormous, rich and varied community and is a powerful player on the world stage, and one we must recognise and value. It will not get into a fit because of what we pass here. On the other hand, an important message may be passed back because I note the presence of the Indian ambassador in the Gallery. I hope he will transmit to Delhi the sentiments expressed here, in a calm way, because of our long-standing friendship with India and our great concern about the situation.
My colleagues, including Deputy Durkan, indicated that this arms race has not made that region safer but has destabilised it. In the earlier debate I spoke of my horror at the attitude of certain religious groups, my own church included, and their negligence on AIDS. It is an abuse of religion, for example, for the Pakistani regime to gloat over what it calls an “Islamic bomb”. I find that horrifying and I am sure most leaders of Islam who think carefully would find this reprehensible. Their leading scientist was out like a supermarket flogging this stuff all over the world to whoever was around. That is shocking and places us all in danger.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins was right to point to the moral catastrophe of the fact that so much money is “deflected”, he used this precise word, from doing good for humanity into the pockets of people who control the arms industry. That must be challenged all the time on an all-party basis. When Deputy Ó Cuív, a conservative member of Fianna Fáil, was a Member of the Senate this was one of his constant hobby horses. He was strident against the international arms industry and we need this stance now more than ever.
If we do not limit nuclear proliferation it does not stay static. If we do not maintain the pressure to reduce these weapons and the number of countries that have them, we encourage the attitude that “If they have one, why cannot we?” That argument is sometimes difficult to answer. In the Middle East people say “If Israel has the bomb, why should Iran not?” If one country has it, why should another not? There are ways of working these treaties and inspections that will assist in this regard.
I appeal to Deputy Mulcahy, having aired his reservations, not to cause a divisive vote but to follow the tradition of his party and support this motion, which the majority of speakers have endorsed. He said he agreed with everything Deputy Higgins had said, which suggests he is not strongly opposed to the motion which I will be happy to support.
Senator Mooney: I am always impressed by and have the greatest respect for Senator Norris’s masterful command of the English language.
Senator Norris: I am a native speaker.
Senator Mooney: The conviction and passion he brought to the argument move one to roll over and agree with everything he said. In addition, I am always in awe of the masterly command of statistics exhibited by my friend and colleague, Deputy Higgins, in bringing forward an argument. I am not as experienced as either member and have no clue as to what the Government position would be at a future international forum at which the issue would be debated, proposed or the subject of a motion. I do not know what form a motion would take and, as a result, cannot support the motion.
What is the Government’s position? It is traditional for there to be a Government response to motions before the House, either in the form of an amendment or support for the motion. There is, however, a vacuum in this debate. We have been presented with a motion but, as Deputy Mulcahy said, it would lock the Government into a particular position in advance of a debate and without knowledge of how the matter will be presented to the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
I share Deputy Mulcahy’s view on the wider issue, which is not in any way contradictory. I agree with the sentiments expressed and in an ideal world would fully support everything that has been said. Not to do so would be like voting against Christmas. There should be disarmament and moves by the international community to ensure nuclear facilities are available only for peaceful, non-military uses. However, we live in the real world. American, for example, which is a signatory to the treaty is regularly in breach of it.
Senator Norris: It is a busted flush in terms of moral authority and its President is discredited.
Senator Mooney: I am stating the facts. President Chavez has decided Venezuela should go nuclear because he wants to take on the big kid on the block. Brazil is also considering going nuclear. The origins of India’s nuclear programme lie in the regional conflict with Pakistan. As Pakistan went nuclear, India felt it should follow suit. I feel comfortable with countries such as India, the world’s largest democracy, and the United States of America having nuclear facilities because I do not think they will bomb me. However, I have a problem with North Korea and an even bigger one with Iran, despite its assertion that it will use the facility for peaceful purposes.
I do not wish to bore committee members but I have no idea of the official Irish position on the motion. As a result, I cannot support it. It is not in any way a criticism of the sentiments expressed in the motion or the arguments put forward in support of it. If I were in Opposition, I would probably be quite happy to support it.
Senator Norris: Can I make a point in response?
Chairman: Please allow Senator Mooney to conclude.
Senator Norris: He made a very interesting comment that needs to be challenged.
Senator Mooney: Until I receive a response from the Department of Foreign Affairs, I propose an amendment that the committee defer making a decision on the motion. I am not saying I will vote against it but suggest we defer making a decision until we learn of the position of the Government.
Senator Norris: I am very saddened by what has happened here. I remind Senator Mooney that I am the one person on this committee since its foundation without a single break. The strength of this committee is and always has been that it is non-partisan. To refer to the Opposition on this committee is completely inappropriate. There is no Government or Opposition side on this committee as far as I am concerned, but people with consistent commitment to the area.
The people around this table have sophistication and a wide range of knowledge, and the committee will be seriously weakened if seen as comprising Government and Opposition sides. It should not be seen as such, and I feel strongly on the point. It would be a real pity if two Fianna Fáil members wanted to defer, not make a decision and place the issue on the long finger on the basis of a commitment to Government.
The glory of this committee is that on many occasions honourable people from Fianna Fáil or other Government parties have acted in conscience on the type of principles both of these gentlemen have enunciated today. These people were not afraid to do so and did not wait in anticipation of being told what to do by Government.