Dan Boyle (Green Party)

That this legislation is non-contentious in Irish politics has been alluded to in the debate. A responsible Opposition would not make a call for nuclear tests to occur in Ireland. In this respect, many Senators will be repetitive in welcoming the legislation.

Historically, the gestation period between United Nations agreements being reached and legislation being passed has been long. For example, the test ban treaty in question was adopted by the General Assembly in 1996, but we are only now implementing it in our Statute Book. It is more than "feel good" legislation. Our foreign policy record is a proud one in that the original nuclear non-proliferation treaty was primarily led by our then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Frank Aiken. We should never lose sight of Ireland's proud role in the debate.

While no political party or future governmental composition will take Ireland down a nuclear armaments road, the Bill and the test ban treaty in question adopt further measures. We live in an increasingly unsafe world where people who do not have national affiliations have access to a technology and the ability to act on it. For this and other reasons a test ban treaty and governing legislation is required.

Senators referred to the number of countries with access to nuclear armaments, some of which have yet to admit to such. Israel, which views itself as a regional policeman, particularly in respect of Iran's ambitions, has never formally acknowledged that it is a nuclear power. However, we are certain that it is given that Mr. Mordechai Vanunu was imprisoned in Israel for revealing many of its nuclear technology secrets. It is unfortunate that an ostensibly democratic country experiencing regional strife has adopted this degree of subterfuge and abused its citizens by failing to acknowledge its use of nuclear technology.

Nuclear energy has been a cloak for the nuclear armaments industry. We should treat with cautioin the nuclear energy industry's promotion of itself as the solution to global warming. Since the end of the Second World War, nuclear energy was never promoted as a cheaper form of energy; it was always there to refine and provide the raw material for nuclear armaments. It is no accident that those countries that have large-scale nuclear energy plants are the ones that have nuclear weapons. It is the reason there are justifiable concerns that the claim by countries such as Iran and North Korea they are producing a programme of nuclear energy technology is simply a cloak for nuclear armament ambitions. That is why a test ban of this type is especially important. It is especially true of Iran which can make no argument for promoting nuclear energy as a means of counteracting global warming or in meeting its own energy needs because it is a large-scale producer and exporter of oil.

The ambivalence and, it is fair to say, hypocrisy of the United States in regard to ratifying this treaty has been already noted but it should be re-stated. I was born in the United States, my parents having emigrated from this country. Many Americans are at odds with their government in this policy area. We debated this issue during the recent Cluster Munitions Bill. There is a trend to develop armaments, which spew from the general nuclear industry. The existence and use of the depleted uranium as a weapon of war is one of the more immoral aspects of modern warfare not covered by a Bill of this type but a definite by-product of the nuclear industry. We should use every opportunity such as the initiative of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, which has been followed through by the current Minister, Deputy Martin, with the adoption of the cluster bomb treaty, to make similar arguments on the international stage about the use and morality of weapons of this type.

The biggest fear is the existence of nuclear weapons in countries that have less than stable governments and democracies — Pakistan is a natural case in point — or the development, sale and use of technology as an economic tool to, what are defined as, rogue elements. The CIA in a recent intelligence report to the US Congress said that it is not a question if but now a matter of when a dirty nuclear bomb will explode somewhere on the planet on the basis of rogue elements not associated with any particular affiliation. That is the dangerous world we live in today. It is important to have in place a treaty of this type. It is also important that we contribute to ensuring that it is policed effectively. As a country we have a proud history in this area and have made no attempt to engage in a nuclear armaments role. The most significant effect we make is to highlight the physical constraints that exist in terms of this technology.

The other argument made about nuclear energy and its possible saviour role in terms of global warming tends to forget that nuclear technology depends on a raw material that is finite. The use of uranium and plutonium cannot sustain the running of nuclear energy plants or the production and continued production of nuclear warheads. On those grounds, there will come a day when this becomes an obsolete technology. However, that does not address the problem that these armaments are incredibly dangerous.

There has only been one use of nuclear armaments in the history of mankind with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were atomic bombs which have been replaced by hydrogen bombs. The effect of the use of current armaments would be much more devastating than atomic bombs. It is possible to blow up the world by many factors of times that would accomplish that, which shows how ridiculous the arms race and the nuclear armaments element of that has become.

I wish to address our relations with the United States and the use of weapons. I was born in the United States and, despite largely disagreeing with its foreign policy, I still identify with it as a friendly nation. The United States has a policy in terms of its naval vessels, even when visiting on a cordial basis, of refusing to state whether they are carrying nuclear weapons or weapons of the type such as depleted uranium. It is a matter of courtesy in international relationships and in keeping with the spirit of legislation such as this, that we should require that all invitations for such future visits are contingent on none of those vessels and none of the people connected with them having been associated with nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we are introducing a degree of hypocrisy and turning a blind eye to policing and to what we seek to insert in this legislation. If we can get across the message in a friendly, cordial and diplomatic way that these are the standards we want to ensure are met, I would like to think that perhaps not the current US Administration but future Administrations would begin to understand that they way America sees the world is very different from the way countries such as Ireland see it in terms of the use of force and nuclear armaments in particular.

On those grounds, I welcome the Bill. I also welcome the contributions made by Members in support of it.