Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

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.

See this speech in context