Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 39: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs Ireland's position in relation to Agreement for the Application of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, and such correspondence as he may have received in this regard from the signatory countries, or their neighbours. [25268/06]

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

The Agreement for the Application of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America was signed between the Governments of Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela following a meeting of their Presidents in Havana on 28-29 April 2006. The Ambassador of Cuba has forwarded a copy of the Agreement to me, which is the only correspondence I have received regarding it from the signatory countries. The Agreement focuses, inter alia, on developing complementary trade programmes, increasing mutual investment, and developing mutually beneficial financing arrangements. Such an Agreement is a matter for the countries concerned and it is not for the Government to take a position in respect of it.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 40: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Ireland has arrived at a conclusion as to the position it will be adopting as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group and the expected request for an exception in order to facilitate the US-India Agreement in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25237/06]

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 51: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the proposed US-India nuclear agreement is not reconcilable with the spirit or the letter of the non-proliferation agreement of the United Nations, of which Ireland was author. [25259/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 40 and 51 together.

Agreement on the basis for US-India civil nuclear cooperation was reached on 2 March 2006 between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh during the former's visit to India. Under the agreement, India has agreed, inter alia, to identify and separate civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes and to file a declaration regarding its civilian facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India has agreed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear power reactors as civilian facilities and voluntarily to place these under IAEA safeguards.

The 45 participating countries of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), including Ireland, have agreed guidelines governing the export of items that are specially designed or prepared for nuclear use and for nuclear related dual-use items and technologies. Under these guidelines the export of such items to India is prohibited and the question has arisen whether the guidelines should be changed or an exemption granted to India. Ireland has been an active participant in discussions on the US-India deal within the NSG. As Minister of State Tracey anticipated in the House on 24 May, the NSG Plenary, which took place in Brasilia from 29 May to 2 June, was not asked to take any decision on the issue. Instead, we received an update on developments since the last NSG discussion in March and agreed to return to the matter in October, when more information might be available.

This Agreement is a complex matter on which our analysis is still continuing. Not all of the details of what precisely is involved are yet clear and we would wish to have the fullest possible information in order to make a considered judgment. We have been active in asking many questions on those aspects where we needed greater clarity in order to assist our own analysis. This is the case, for example, with regard to the safeguards agreement that India has yet to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Our final view will ultimately depend on our assessment of the potential impact of the US-India deal on the global non-proliferation regime, and on the approach taken by like-minded countries.

There are differing views, internationally, as to the potential impact of the deal on the global regime and on the NPT, in particular. The recently released report of the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Hans Blix, has, for example, concluded that the compatibility, or otherwise, of the US-India deal with the NPT is a matter of judgment. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El Baradei, has also noted in a recent op-ed piece that this is a complex issue on which intelligent people can disagree and that, ultimately, it comes down to a balance of judgment.

As Minister of State Tracey made clear in the House on 24 May, while we have still to reach a final, considered and informed judgment on the matter, we do have genuine concerns about what appears to be envisaged. We continue to see the NPT as a unique and irreplaceable multilateral instrument for maintaining and reinforcing international peace and security. The Treaty establishes a legal framework both for preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and for the elimination of existing nuclear weapons through the obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament. We will remain committed to the universalisation of the NPT and will continue to call upon all States not party to the Treaty, including India to accede as non nuclear weapon States.