Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The debate seems to follow on from the point I was making earlier during Leaders' Questions about the agenda of increasing militarisation and securitisation in Europe. As vice chairperson of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I have had the opportunity to attend some of the Common Defence and Security Policy meetings in Europe. There is no doubt that defence is a growing concern because of the increased worries or threats that certain countries face, and whether they are perceived or actual is another matter. The Baltic countries, for example, fear their big neighbour wanting to take back what was once under their control. Georgia has fears over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, while there are fears for Ukraine and its difficulties. There is conflict in many other parts of the world, such as in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and countries in Africa, while there are tensions with Iran and with North Korea. Within that volatile mix there is the danger of certain countries having nuclear weapons. I acknowledge that it is a cliché but it seems that more and more often attack is seen as the best form of defence. It is a worrying time.

Nevertheless, the majority of us seem to agree on the need for a world free from nuclear weapons. In January 2019, Senator Norris and I endorsed the Basel Appeal on Disarmament and Sustainable Security, which was an open letter to world leaders in the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, as well as to parliamentary committees and the Secretary General of NATO. In the letter, we quoted from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which highlighted the failure of world leaders to deal with the looming threat of nuclear war and the increasingly high risk of a nuclear exchange, whether by accident, miscalculation, conflict escalation or intent. The letter welcomed the adoption by the UN of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons but expressed concern about the deteriorating security environment in Europe and internationally because of the erosion of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, the US withdrawing from the joint comprehensive plan of action, the further development and modernisation of nuclear weapons, and what the letter's authors called provocative war games and nuclear threat postures. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was the historic agreement between the US and the Soviet Union, has unravelled. The letter called on the Russian Duma and the US Congress to refuse to authorise or allocate funding for developing or deploying weapons that might violate the treaty. There was also a call on NATO to reaffirm its opposition to any deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe. The New START treaty, about which there are concerns that it may be undermined by current conflicts, is set to expire in February 2021 and there is a need to expand it further into the 2020s.

There is always a danger of nuclear weapons being used by accident or miscalculation, which makes all the more urgent the need for countries, especially the US and Russia, and NATO to reaffirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be launched. They must resile from their high operational readiness to use nuclear weapons. There is a famous quote from Albert Einstein: "I know not what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." There were two World Wars in the previous century, followed by a Cold War and an Iron Curtain, and there were many wars of ethnicity and civilisation throughout the world.

On the other side was the hope that came from the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Everybody can agree there is a fear that a conflict could escalate into a nuclear war but there are a number of ironies. One is the attitude of the United States towards nuclear disarmament. The United States argues that nations it sees as "rogue states" should be stopped at all costs from gaining a nuclear threat. Nevertheless, the only sovereign state to use atomic weapons has been the United States, with devastating consequences that are still being felt today. Another irony concerns arms in general. I am always struck by how NATO countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany sometimes come out in support of nuclear prohibition yet they have an arms industry that sells arms to regimes that are causing conflicts today. Yemen is the example that immediately springs to mind. The need for nuclear prohibition is about stopping the threat of wholesale destruction but the bombing and maiming of people with smaller munitions over years is somehow not seen as the same wholesale destruction. We need a detailed debate around arms sales in general as there is much hypocrisy at play within geopolitics.

The Bill is welcome and I hope it is supported. As a non-aligned and mainly neutral country - although there are concerns about our status in that regard - Ireland should have a stronger voice in the wider debate around arms and the sale of arms to countries with little regard for international law and human suffering in particular. The western media will always channel the nuclear prohibition debate between bogeyman states like North Korea and Iran, portraying them as unstable and unpredictable and which should never therefore be capable of using nuclear weapons or enriching uranium. There is nothing about the track record of countries with established nuclear capability. Israel, for example, disregards international law by continuing to build settlements. We can also look at what has been happening in India and Pakistan, as well as in the United States. A leaked memo from some months ago indicates the United States was thinking of invading Venezuela some time ago.

The goal of nuclear weapons prohibition is to stop states obtaining nuclear capabilities but there is just as much need to debate the states that already have nuclear capabilities and what they could do. Going back to 1968, for example, fewer than 20 countries negotiated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is recognised that five countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - had already acquired nuclear arsenals at the time. Those five countries committed to the process of nuclear disarmament and other countries accepted obligations not to acquire or try to acquire nuclear weapons or programmes. The treaty came into legal force in 1970, with approximately 60 members joining. However, in order to encourage non-nuclear countries to sign the 1968 treaty, it actively promoted the use of nuclear technologies for what were called "peaceful" purposes. Many countries, including Iraq, North Korea and Iran, pursued nuclear programmes with help from nuclear-armed states like the United Kingdom. When they wanted to try to copy the five countries with nuclear weapons in developing their own weapons, the treaty was used to pressure them.

In 2003, North Korea became the first country to withdraw from the treaty. We know the United States deployed nuclear weapons in and around South Korea until the 1990s and it still stations thousands of troops and weaponry there. Unfortunately, North Koreans are now being taught that having their own nuclear deterrent is the only way to defend themselves against the United States, which possesses the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal. The debate is riddled with hypocrisy.

There is not enough in the Bill and we also need an action plan for the comprehensive phasing out of nuclear weapons in order to reduce nuclear stockpiles, cancel nuclear weapons modernisation programmes and cut nuclear weapons budgets. This must be done through dialogue and engagement with all states in order to eliminate all nuclear weapons. The global militarisation index for 2017 indicates that $1.74 trillion was spent on weapons and military equipment. The European Union spends $260 billion yearly on its military operations. That does not include nuclear spending but I saw one figure indicating that $1 trillion will be spent in modernising the nuclear arsenals of nine countries over the next ten years. We could think about what that nuclear budget could do to end poverty and hunger, protect our climate and achieve sustainable development goals.

Deputy Pringle's Bill to divest from fossil fuels has passed through the Oireachtas and we need to do the same and divest from companies involved with nuclear weapons. Three countries in Europe have done this already and there are 26 companies involved with the production of nuclear weapons. Ireland has already excluded three of these and it is worthwhile looking further into such action. There is a role for smaller countries like Ireland because we have a very strong reputation when it comes to humanitarian issues and human rights. We can be a strong voice here also. A nuclear war can never happen and the best way to avoid it is to have a position where no nuclear weapons are held by anyone.

See this speech in context