Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 88: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his meeting in February 2007 in Dublin with Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10383/07]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I met Dr. El Baradei on 16 February. Dr. El Baradei, who also met the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government separately on the same day, was in Dublin to receive an honorary patronage of the Trinity College Philosophical Society. In the course of our meeting, I raised a number of issues in Dr. El Baradei's particular area of responsibility, including recent developments in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DPRK, the Iranian nuclear programme, and the United States-India civil nuclear co-operation agreement.

On the DPRK, we both welcomed the agreement addressing its nuclear programme reached earlier that week at the six-party talks in Beijing. This positive development is of particular importance to the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, whose inspectors will now be able to return to North Korea's nuclear facilities after a prolonged absence to carry out their vital monitoring and inspection work. Dr. El Baradei was recently in the DPRK to discuss the practicality of implementing the agreement. He indicated subsequently that the visit had been useful and had opened the way to a normal relationship.

In regard to Iran, Dr. El Baradei's visit was particularly timely as it came one week before the issuing of his report on Iran in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737. During our meeting he shared his perceptions of the main outstanding issues with respect to the Iranian nuclear programme and his sense of how the process was developing and what lay ahead. We agreed on the importance of a negotiated solution to this issue and, in this connection, he referred to his own proposal for a time-out or double suspension as a possible way of enabling the commencement of negotiations with Iran. Dr. El Baradei subsequently issued his report confirming Iran's failure to comply with Resolution 1737, and it is anticipated that the Security Council will adopt a follow-up resolution in the near future.

I shared my concerns about the potential impact of the United States-India civil nuclear co-operation agreement on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT, and the disarmament and non-proliferation regime it established. Dr. El Baradei gave his perception, which was somewhat more positive, focusing on the developmental and environmental aspects of the deal. These views are in line with his previous public comments on this matter. The negotiation of an Indian safeguards agreement with the IAEA is one of the further steps required before the United States-India deal can be implemented. These negotiations, however, have yet to begin.

In sum, the meeting offered a valuable opportunity for an exchange of views on some of the more significant and topical issues in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree with the views expressed by Dr. El Baradei? For example, he observed that we spend $100 billion every year on development, less than 10% of the $1.1 trillion spent on weapons. He described this as hypocritical and also said it was hypocritical for the nuclear powers to preach to non-nuclear states. He particularly referred to the United Kingdom spending $200 billion to modernise the Trident submarine. I tend to agree with his views. Does the Minister?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In general, yes. I said at the UN review conference that it is hypocritical of certain countries to demand, from a military point of view, that others should not be allowed to move on nuclear energy, while they themselves are not disarming, which was the other side of the coin in terms of the NPT. Ireland has been to the fore over the years in articulating that and will continue to do so.

Dr. El Baradei's views on Iran and the proposed EU energy deal were surprising, and his perspective on the latter was particularly interesting. The remit of his organisation is to monitor all of this activity, but he seemed more positive than are we in Ireland towards the United States-India deal.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree there is a misconception in regard to the relationship between the IAEA and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? The IAEA is not the secretariat to the NPT. Does the Minister agree it would be valuable to follow the Blix proposal that a secretariat be established to the NPT to advance it?

Dr. El Baradei's view in regard to the non-signatory countries, including Pakistan, India, Israel and possibly Iran, which are effectively adopting a policy of constructive denial, is to construct a set of bilateral treaties. Does the Minister agree it would be impossible to sustain the NPT, press on for universality or achieve a comprehensive ban on testing if there was a conscious alternative of separate bilateral treaties, some of which are negotiated on commercial grounds? The United States-India deal, for instance, is worth $100 billion to the United States nuclear industry. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is reasonable to see Dr. El Baradei's views as not essentially integrated with those who support the NPT?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I am generally not in favour of bilateral agreements. I support multilateralism and the attempts to ensure all nations disarm, as originally intended under the NPT, while also preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That has been successful, although there are some who say there are difficulties. I agree there are difficulties, but at least Iran remains part of the NPT and has not walked away. Also, the success of the six-party talks has shown the DPRK can be reined in somewhat. This shows that pressure from all nations rather than from one block can ensure nuclear proliferation does not happen. In the 1960s some people would have suggested that by now we would have many more countries with nuclear bombs, but that is not the case. Therefore, the NPT has been successful in this area.

I said, to both Dr. Hans Blix and Dr. El Baradei whom I met separately, that our view is that the multilateral effort of the NPT is the way to go. I had difficulty with the fact that both men had different perspectives and told them that. They acknowledged my difficulty and said they understood a neutral nation like Ireland with a history and good record on articulating a non-nuclear stance would adopt fairly stringent attitudes towards what is going on in a number of instances.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree that double standards appear to operate in this area? The non-proliferation treaty has been sidelined, effectively, until 2010, at a time when there are major proliferation threats. India has been rewarded by the United States in what was termed a €100 million deal. Is that what the Minister said?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not say that.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Michael Higgins said it and I do not doubt his word. India is a country which has ignored the NPT for almost 40 years. I am not in favour of appeasement, but at the same time, Iran is being threatened in a belligerent manner over its nuclear programme by the very people entering into agreement with India. Does the Minister agree we must have some consistency on the control of nuclear weapons? Does he also agree, in the words of Dr. Hans Blix, that instead of threatening and backing Iran into a corner, there should be realistic discussions with the Iranians and a conciliatory approach made with them to reach some agreement on their nuclear programme. Currently, we have, at best, misguided policies and at worst, total hypocrisy and double standards, depending on which country is developing nuclear weapons. We turn a blind eye towards Israel which recently tacitly acknowledged it has nuclear weapons. At the same time Iran is being backed into a corner giving rise to the danger it may go down the wrong road.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not repeat my view on double standards as I am inclined to agree with the sentiments expressed on the other side of the House. On the Iranian situation, the Deputy is correct that the only way to deal with the situation is by negotiation, treating Iran with dignity, but at the same time sending a strong message that the international community, not just America, Europe or Israel, does not wish Iran to possess nuclear weapons, just as it does not wish Israel to possess nuclear weapons.

However, the independent monitoring agency on the Iranian situation has pointed out in reports that what is going on in Iran is definitely in the direction of military nuclear capability rather than the civilian nuclear capability claimed. There is a change ——

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could the Minister do something to reactivate negotiations on the NPT rather than wait until 2010?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Discussions are taking place, but based on the recent report of the IAEA, the UN Security Council will, within the next week, examine what further action should be taken against Iran. We live in an open society where debate takes place. We must be grateful for that and that we do not live in a society dictated from on top. Changes are taking place in Iranian society where groups feel some pressure as a result of sanctions already imposed and those that may be imposed by the international community through the UN. It is hoped that by a ratcheting up of sanctions more pressure will be put on the broad spectrum of civil society in Iran to ensure the government there does not take the route of a military capability.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister confirm we have a position on the nuclear suppliers group? Would we use that to ensure a strong position is taken in defence of the non-proliferation treaty by vetoing the bilateral agreements between the US and India, and any other countries that are not signatories to the UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty so that we can ensure we build a nuclear weapon-free world? Will this continue to be Ireland's position and will we use every opportunity to ensure the NPT is defended as strongly as possible?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure the Deputy that Ireland is to the fore in defending the NPT, particularly in the context of the NSG. On the US-India deal, not all elements are on the table and there is still a long way to go before we reach a stage where we will have to make a determination. There are strong arguments against this deal, but other people, including Dr. El Baradei and Dr. Hans Blix, have a more positive view on this deal. This was part of the reason I met them both when they were here, in order to tease out their perspective as relatively independent people. We will not take a final view on the US-India deal until all the elements are in place and all the requirements are in place to make a decision. We are not at that stage yet.