Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)

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.

See this speech in context