Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

One of the main foreign policy commitments of the Fine Gael Party is to the vigorous pursuit of the goal of universal nuclear and biological disarmament. For that reason, this legislation is entirely in keeping with this policy and commitment and Fine Gael will be supporting the Bill to ensure its passage without delay.

In the past 20 years there has been a fundamental change in relationships in Europe and the world. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact have changed completely the context of Ireland's neutrality. In today's world, many of the threats faced by societies and states are not from each other but from armed groups and fundamentalist militants seeking to destroy the properties and lives of citizens. In light of these threats, it is important, therefore, for Ireland not to stand still by applying a 20th century form of neutrality to a 21st century world with 21st century problems. We must be to the forefront in the design of a common EU security and defence system in order to face new threats to world peace and international law. Our neutrality needs to evolve to take into account these changes. Fine Gael believes it would be a tragic mistake for Ireland not to seek to influence the European security system in the future. We should not only be part of the European security and defence architecture but we should be one of the architects helping to design these systems to meet our needs and our view of Europe's needs.

Fine Gael wants any common security and defence system to be guided by our five main principles: to adhere to the fundamental principles of the United Nations; the pursuit of universal nuclear and biological disarmament; and the commitment to providing peacekeeping and peace-making operations. Ireland can be very proud in this regard and should always ensure it partakes in peacekeeping missions and peace-making operations. In recent years, with the exception of Chad, our Defence Forces missions abroad have decreased and this is regrettable. We should avail of every opportunity to ensure the Defence Forces are available for missions of peacekeeping or peace-making. I hope this Government will pursue every opportunity in that regard.

I commend the ongoing work of the Defence Forces Military College at the Curragh. This is regarded as a college of excellence for teaching peacekeeping methods which have been evolved over many foreign operations.

When I was Minister for Defence, I was visited by the United States military attaché. He asked my permission to recommend to his superiors that some of their key personnel be sent to the Curragh college to learn peacekeeping methods. He openly admitted to me that they knew nothing about peacekeeping. They had the most modern weapons in the world and they trained their forces in the use of these weapons but when it came to peacekeeping, they knew nothing. I thought this was a very open admission on the part of a senior military person. I invited him to participate in any activities in the Curragh college. This illustrates that a small country such as Ireland can influence so much in the world, especially in the area of foreign policy. We do not have any baggage and we are respected. It is important that we never lose the talent we have for peacekeeping.

The fourth principle is to respect the right of other EU states to enter other military alliances or to remain neutral, as they choose. The fifth principle is the right of Ireland to opt in and out of aspects of a mutual defence and security system on a case-by-case basis. In order to ensure these five principles enshrined in a European security and defence policy, we must be prepared at all times to engage fully in any discussions leading up to the adoption of any such policy.

Regarding the legislation before us, my information is not quite in accordance with the statement of the Minister of State. I understood there were 159 state parties and 15 signatory states to the biological weapons convention but I bow to the knowledge of the Department of Foreign Affairs in that regard. I note that the convention was opened for signature in 1972 and came into force in 1975.

It was the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning an entire category of weapons. It effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, retention, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons. Although it had a turbulent operational history, the convention is commonly hailed for establishing a fundamental international law norm that the hostile use of disease is repugnant to mankind. I fully support this.

While establishing a broad norm of international repugnance for biological warfare, securing agreement on how to monitor and enforce compliance with the convention's articles has proven difficult. The biological weapons convention state parties have the right to request a formal investigation through the UN Security Council if they believe another state has violated the convention. However, to date no state party has ever used this vehicle to lodge a complaint. The reluctance to use the Security Council mechanism has often been ascribed to the highly political nature of an accusation made in the UN. This is a sad reflection on the UN Security Council. There are five permanent members and in today's world, it strikes me that the provision is out of date. There is a lack of trust and some decisions taken at Security Council level are guided by political influences of a particular member state.

The UN Security Council is vital in the architecture of peace maintenance and world order. As with this House, it should look at itself and consider re-organising. The UN is an important body and is the only building in which various nations, which may be at loggerheads with each other on various issues, assemble and we should let nothing damage the principle of the institution. Sometimes one must examine how it does its business. It has suffered over the past number of years, perhaps because of the failure to fund it properly. Accusations of wasting public moneys and other issues have damaged its reputation for administration functions. That is not to say that the principle should not be protected. As a small country within the EU, Ireland should use its influence to open a discussion and debate within the EU on whether it is time for the EU to make proposals on the reform of the UN. A body such as the EU should have a place on the Security Council structure in a reformed system.

Perhaps the Security Council is expected to deal with too many matters. One of the most important issues today is the world response to national tragedies. The most recent was that of Pakistan. Our ability to organise ourselves to come to the rescue of states that suffer these tragedy, such as Haiti and Pakistan, leaves a lot to be desired. Our failure to involve ourselves quickly on a humanitarian basis only benefits the likes of the Taliban and fundamentalist groups. It gives them an opportunity to promote their wares. It is vital importance that we are willing and able to come to the aid of nations struggling with a major tragedy. It is vitally important we look at our procedures to see how we can reform matters.

The biological weapons convention has accrued a certain degree of notoriety for the regularity with which it was breached and the weak alternative arbitration matters incorporated in the convention. We should be aware of that. Perhaps the Minister of State can guide me in his response. I am not aware of how one goes about changing a convention. Perhaps it requires a new convention to replace the existing convention. Some 30 years have passed since this convention was established and, as with everything else, time moves on. Provision is made for a review every five years.

See this speech in context