Sir, - I would like to correct a number of errors and misperceptions in Kevin Myers' comments regarding the Chemical Weapons Convention (April 26th).
The purpose of the Chemical Weapons Bill which recently passed through the Dail is to ensure that the Irish Government can fulfil its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. It does not, as Mr Myers states, enable Ireland to sign the Convention. Ireland signed the Chemical Weapons Convention on January 14th, 1993, and deposited its instrument of ratification on June 24th, 1996, thus becoming an original State Party when it entered into force on April 29th.
Mr Myers is wrong to group China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq and the Russian Federation together, as being "almost certainly not on the side of the angels." Iraq has never participated in, or contributed to, the Chemical Weapons Convention. Its programmes on weapons of mass destruction, including those relating to chemical weapons capabilities, have been and continue to be monitored by the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM).
The situation with China, Iran and Russia is entirely different. All three States signed the Convention in 1993, immediately after it opened for signature reflecting their key role in negotiating the treaty for over 20 years in Geneva. In addition, the three States actively participated in the preparatory work undertaken between the opening for signature and entry into force of the Convention. China, like the United States, is an original State party to the Convention. Neither Iran nor Russia are States parties yet, but it is hoped that this will happen in the not too distant future. In neither case should the lack of an actual deposit be read as a lack of political commitment to the treaty. The Iranian cabinet unanimously approved their ratification bill for the Convention in February, and the Russian State Duma issued a statement recently reaffirming their commitment.
Mr Myers criticises the verification provisions of the Convention and expounds the view that the IRA might use poison gas to support their activities. It is precisely because chemical weapons are so easily produced, compared to nuclear weapons for example, that makes this treaty so important. Not even the most ardent supporters of the Convention claim that the treaty is 100 per cent verifiable, but it will make it much more difficult to produce chemical weapons and will strengthen the norm against their use, thus making chemical warfare politically difficult as well. Would Mr Myers advocate that because we cannot immediately guarantee an entirely safe world, we should not venture forth at all?
Finally, Mr Myers appears to be confused about Ireland's relationship with the "world's great democracies", pointing to the failure to support them during the Cold War, but at the same time arguing that Ireland should not join them in this treaty, which Britain, France and the United States have supported from the outset. All NATO members, excepting Turkey, have ratified this treaty as well as every member of the EU Are all these countries guilty of "conspicuous piety"?
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an extremely important step forward - being the first disarmament agreement to emerge in the postCold War world. It is important because of the unprecedented system it creates to verify compliance with its terms, including onsite inspections without the right of refusal. It has near universal support, and in terms of its signatories, is second only to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It deserves, if not support, then at least a responsible assessment rather than an uninformed dismissal. Yours, etc.,
Researcher,
Harvard Sussex Program on CBW Armament and Arms
Limitation,
Sussex University,
Brighton,
England.