David Norris (Independent)

I do not accept that if one attaches these lousy devices to an equally lousy device, they suddenly become unlousy, so to speak. Anti-personnel mines are intended to prevent people from defusing the mines. I am more or less, albeit not entirely or exclusively, a pacifist, and if either I or someone close to me was subjected to brutalisation, I would rapidly shed my pacifist extremist leanings. However, defusing mines is a highly worthy objective and I wonder how many people are killed while legitimately defusing them. My first point is these devices are known to be nasty, evil and to have a completely negative impact. However, it is not a good moral argument to suggest that when attached to something equally nasty, they suddenly become cleansed and immune, especially as someone might wish to render ineffective the anti-tank mine.

I will move on to the argument that this could cause a problem in respect of the legislation's passage by other countries because of the difficult diplomatic negotiations. I again put on record my admiration for our diplomats who negotiated this convention. Although it was complex, took a long time and so on, both Deputy Michael D. Higgins and I always held the view that one could initiate legislation and pass it domestically in anticipation of the signature of an international convention. Such legislation could act as a model or standard and our diplomats then could negotiate from that high position. This has been done before.

I am aware this is difficult and a certain amount of wrangling took place in the Lower House between Deputy Higgins and the Minister about the relative parishes of diplomacy and politics. It became quite confusing because at one point, the Minister appeared to argue there was no difference and they were part of the same circuit, while at other times he appeared to suggest they differed radically. My point is that my political position, which is distinct from the highly professional work done by our diplomats, is that it would have been worthwhile had Ireland passed a law that did all these things. I believe most Irish people would agree with banning anti-personnel mines completely.

My second point in this regard is that I do not accept that variations in Irish law from the universal model will call into question the ratification of the treaty because at least two countries have passed different legislation domestically. I accept it may cause some diplomatic difficulties and that this is a risk. However, I do not accept the rest. Perhaps this highlights the distinction between the respective roles of politicians and diplomats. While questions might be raised about my role, effectiveness or relevance as a politician, no one would select me as a diplomat anywhere. It is a question of horses for courses and I understand there is a difference between politics and diplomacy. On those occasions when I am asked to go abroad by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, I believe the principal reason to be that I am completely undiplomatic. I can say the kind of things I did to Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, thereby allowing the Minister to apologise diplomatically behind my back and to claim that Norris does not represent the Government. However, the Government was bloody glad I said what I did and the same was true in respect of Velayati and Rasfanjani.