Vol. 403 No. 6
3 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the Government's position in relation to the request by some of the permanent members for a resolution from the Security Council of the United Nations which would enable military action in the Gulf crisis; and if he will further outline the specificity of the Government's approach towards the foreign policy issues raised by the most recent development in that crisis.
4 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the United Nations resolution, passed on Thursday 29 November, 1990 was discussed at the European Political Committee; the attitude the Irish Government adopted at the committee; and, if it was not discussed, if he will make a statement outlining the Government's position.
14 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the Government's attitude to the United Nations Security Council motion on possible action against Iraq passed last week; if the Government intends to take any new steps to try to promote a peaceful solution to the crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
25 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position Ireland will take on the United States motion at the United Nations on the use of force against Saddam Hussein and Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 4, 14 and 25 together.
Under Article 25 of the Charter all member states are committed to accept the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. Ireland has always abided by its obligations under this and other provisions of the United Nations Charter.
Since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on 2 August, the UN Security Council has adopted a series of Resolutions under Chapter VII of the Charter. The first of these, Resolution 660 of 2 August, made a formal determination that a breach of international peace and security exists. It condemned the Iraqi invasion; demanded that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally; and called upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin intensive negotiations immediately. It also supported all efforts in this regard and especially those of the Arab League.
Since then the Council has adopted a total of 12 Resolutions on the invasion and its consequences. In the course of these Resolutions, the Council has imposed a wide range of sanctions on Iraq. It has also decided that the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq has no legal validity and is null and void; and it has demanded that Iraq allow to leave all foreign citizens held against their will in Iraq and Kuwait.
These Resolutions of the Security Council are unprecedented. They are based on an impressive degree of unity on the issue within the international community and especially among the five permanent members of the Security Council, who include two of our partners in the European Community, France and the United Kingdom. They have articulated clear demands directed to Iraq, a member state of the UN; and they have put in place a wide-ranging series of sanctions which all UN member states are obliged to support and which are designed to secure compliance by Iraq with the mandatory decisions of the Council.
The most recent decision by the Security Council on the situation is Resolution 678 which was adopted on 28 November. This Resolution maintains all previous decisions of the Council and demands that Iraq comply fully with them. At the same time it decides to allow Iraq one final opportunity, termed a "pause of goodwill", to do so. The Resolution goes on to authorise member states co-operating with the government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to uphold and implement these Resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area unless Iraq, on or before 15 January 1991, fully implements the Resolutions of the Council from Resolution 660 onwards. The Council also requests all states to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of the Resolutions.
Since this Resolution was adopted by the Security Council one week ago it has been announced that the US Secretary of State, James Baker, will go to Baghdad and the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, will visit Washington for discussions. The United States Government have made it clear that they do not see these talks as negotiations but rather as an effort to avert a war which, given the weapons and the build up of forces on the Iraqi side and on the part of various countries who have contributed forces to the region, could be hugely destructive and disastrous in its international political and economic consequences. The hope of the Irish Government is that reason will prevail and that the crisis will be resolved without recourse to war. I would therefore appeal to Iraq to use the pause of goodwill between now and early January to reassess its position and to consider how disastrous war would be for all it wishes to achieve for its people and for the region. I would earnestly hope that, having done so, Iraq would comply fully with the decisions of the Security Council which, like all member states, it is obliged under the Charter to accept and implement.
Since the beginning of the Gulf Crisis there has been close consultation between the twelve member states of the Community at all levels including the Political Committee, the Foreign Ministers and the European Council. This consultation continues on a regular basis. While fully respecting and complying with all its obligations under the UN Charter and upholding the principles to which we are committed internationally, the Government will continue, in these and other international discussions, to urge their own very clear view. That is that a concerted approach by the international community to implement the sanctions already in place and to oblige Iraq to comply with the decisions of the Council offers the best hope of a peaceful resolution of this extremely dangerous situation and the best way of averting the terrible dangers of a major conflict in the region.
The Government also believe that the best way to effect the restoration of the right of our citizens trapped in Iraq and Kuwait to travel freely, as well as the best way of preventing war, is to adhere strictly to the EC and UN common approach.
The majority of our citizens are now home. We will not cease our efforts to secure the early release of all our remaining citizens in these countries.
I have arranged for copies of Resolution 678 and the other resolutions passed by the Security Council on the Gulf crisis to be placed in the Library.
I thank the Minister for the information he has given to the House. I do not want to be dismissive of it but it is public information which one can get anywhere. The Government's position is based on Resolution 660 of 2 August which calls on Iraq to leave Kuwait and to restore the Emir of Kuwait to his throne. That was the controlling resolution until last Thursday. Resolution 678 changes the position completely. It is no longer a question of calling on Iraq to move out of Kuwait, although it must still do that. If it persists in the attitude it has held for the past four months, the Government will be faced with a different situation in that all states are obliged to uphold Resolution 678. If by 15 January Iraq has not left Kuwait. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that.
I mentioned very specifically that Resolution 678 incorporates the existing resolutions, in particular Resolution 660. Therefore, the basic elements of the other resolutions are still there. Of course there is a new and very important element in that action is sought within a six-week period. All member states are obliged to accept that Security Council resolution and we do so. Does that answer the question?
The Minister has outlined the historical fact as I understand them. On 16 January next this country will be faced with an entirely different situation if Iraq has not left Kuwait. Does the Minister agree?
Of course I do. I am still very hopeful that the situation will not arise. Nobody wants war and everybody is working hard to ensure that in the remaining five weeks efforts will be made to resolve the crisis through peaceful means. There has been a flurry of diplomatic activity throughout the world in an effort to achieve that. Unconfirmed reports around one o'clock today may be regaraded with great hope. The Deputy may not be aware of these reports.
No.
Reports have come through that Saddem Hussein has directed Parliament to convene in Baghdad for the purposes of implementing the immediate release of all 3,000 hostages held there. He has said, according to the Iraqi news agency, that he has no longer any reason for holding them and is sorry he ever held them. He is sorry for the inconvenience and so on caused to their families. Immediately after getting that news at approximately 12.20 p.m. we contacted our Ambassador in Iraq to see if that was so. We are awaiting confirmation and as of now he is at the Foreign Ministry trying to get confirmation. We have been on to our colleagues in the Twelve and the United Nations to see if they have received any confirmation. There are some indicators which would lead us to being somewhat optimistic but, as Deputy Barry knows as well as I do, we have received so many reports from there and news briefings in the past which just did not stand up. However, we are quite hopeful and taking this into account with other announcements regarding the need for peace in the region as a whole — the Americans now say they support the United Nations call for an international peace conference in the region — this will play its part in bringing about the much needed long term stability in the region. One cannot just resolve the problems in that part of the Middle East region and leave the rest the way it has been for a considerable period of time. We will deal later on with other questions on the order paper on that matter. I am sorry but I genuinely believed that Deputy Barry would have had that information. It is not confirmed and when it is we will give it to him with pleasure.
Proinsias De Rossa rose.
I have to say that the time available for dealing with priority questions is obviously long since exhausted and I am now proceeding to deal with other questions.
On a point of order, may I——
What is the point of order, Deputy?
Have I the floor?
You have, reluctantly, Deputy.
Why? Am I not entitled to raise a point of order?
Because I am getting on to other questions.
Pardon?
I said I was going on to other questions.
I want to raise a point of order.
What is the point of order?
My point of order is that the time for priority questions ended at 2.45 p.m. We are still dealing with both priority questions and ordinary questions——
That is not a point of order, Deputy. Is the Chair being faulted for some generosity in the matter?
Would you hear me out?
No, Deputy, I am going on to——
Please, a Cheann Comhairle, I appeal to you——
Deputy De Rossa, you are obstructing the Chair.
——to allow me make a point of order.
This is not a point of order.
I am not obstructing the Chair but raising a point of order about the correctness——
It is not a point of order.
You do not know whether it is a point of order because you have not heard it yet.
It is not a point of order.
You have not heard my point of order.
I have heard it.
You have not.
You are challenging my right to proceed to deal with other questions.
I am not challenging anything. I am seeking information as to whether ordinary questions that were taken in priority question time can now be taken seeing that we are still dealing with them at 2.50 p.m.
They may not.
Thank you very much; if you had listened to me you could have said that three minutes ago.
This is an erosion of precious time.
I am sick and tired of you attempting to prevent me from raising points of order and speaking in this House.
Deputy De Rossa, that statement is totally unjustified.
It is not unjustified. You refused to hear my point of order.
I heard your point of order.
After I had protested about it.
It was an obstruction of my desire——
I intend to lodge a complaint about the way you continually treat me in this House. I am not prepared to take it any longer.
I allowed priority questions to go some four or five minutes over time——
You have no entitlement to do that.
——and having done that you challenged my authority.
You have no entitlement to let Question Time run over. You have no entitlement to do that without the order of this House.
That was out of deference to the wishes——
I was seeking the privilege of putting a supplementary on a question I had which was being dealt with by the Minister under Priority Question Time when it had already entered ordinary Question Time.
Deputy De Rossa, I will not take any barracking from you.
I intend to take it up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Take it up anywhere you like, Deputy.
I intend to.
By all means do. Question No. 6.
May I thank the Minister for his reply? I would be afraid to stand up and say it as you might kill me.
It is just as well that we are not wired direct to Baghdad.
