Gulf Conflict: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move that:

Dáil Éireann noting that under the United Nations Charter all member States have agreed to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter;

Expresses its deep regret that the failure of all efforts by the international community to secure compliance with UN Security Council resolutions in regard to Kuwait by peaceful means made the use of military force for this purpose unavoidable.

At this critical time, Dáil Éireann

Declares its full support for the decisions of the Security Council and notes that Resolution 678, inter alia, ‘requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of this Resolution’

Notes that Iraq has persisted in flouting the resolutions of the Security Council which called upon it to withdraw all its forces immediately and unconditionally;

Expresses the earnest hope that all concerned will do everything open to them to ensure that military action will be of short duration and that the loss of human life and destruction will be kept to a minimum; and

Expresses its strong support for the continuation of diplomatic efforts to secure an end of the present conflict and a peaceful settlement of the crisis on a basis which will ensure full compliance with the Security Council resolutions and restoration of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Kuwait.

Successive efforts by the international community to secure compliance with the UN resolutions failed and the use of military force for this purpose became unavoidable. War has begun and in this critical situation I want to set out clearly for you the views of the Government and to explain to you where Ireland will stand.

First of all let me say that the Government had in advance made all possible arrangements to cope with the situation that would arise for us in this country in the event of war. My Government colleagues who have responsibility for the main areas of possible concern will deal with the different aspects of the situation during the course of this debate.

In the present crisis, without ignoring the complex history of the region, it is necessary to begin with one clear undisputed fact. On 2 August last year Iraq, a member state of the United Nations invaded Kuwait. It overran that country, a fellow Arab State, in a brutal manner and then purported to annex it. In doing this, Iraq sought to extinguish a sovereign State, a fellow member of the United Nations.

Since many other issues have since arisen, it is necessary to keep this central point clearly in mind. For the first time since 1945 when the UN Charter was adopted as an international code of law to govern relations between states, one member state of the United Nations had simply swallowed another by force and brought its people into subjection.

That kind of action may have characterised the 19th century, but it has no precedent since the United Nations was established. There have, indeed, been other wars and invasions and much brutality, but no member state of the United Nations has ever wiped another out of existence by force in violation of the most fundamental principle of international law.

If the action itself was unprecedented, the response of the United Nations to that action was also unprecedented. Under Article 24 of the Charter, the member states of the UN confer the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security on the Security Council; and under Article 25 they agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Council in accordance with the Charter. In this case, the Council, freed from the divisions of the Cold War which had so often paralysed it in the past, acted with an unusual degree of unity to meet that responsibility.

On the day of the invasion the Security Council in its resolution 660 of 2 August demanded that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Kuwait; and it called upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences. Iraq simply ignored this demand. The Council responded by using its authority under Chapter VII of the Charter to take action with mandatory effect for all member states. In exercise of that authority the Council adopted over the months since then a series of resolutions which impose a wide range of sanctions on Iraq to compel it to withdraw from Kuwait.

International sanctions against a sovereign state are not easy to maintain and it is often difficult to make them effective. In the case of Iraq, however, situated as it is geographically and dependent as it is on exports of oil, the sanctions had a serious effect. They blocked almost all of Iraq's international trade except for humanitarian items; and they had very wide support on the part of the international community.

In parallel with the imposition of sanctions, some 28 countries — ranging from the United States, Britain, France and other EC partners to Syria, Egypt, Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Argentina and Honduras — by their own individual decisions sent forces of one kind or another to the region. They did so initially for the most part as a signal of deterrence to Iraq lest it engage in further aggression against Saudi Arabia and other neighbouring countries. Article 51 of the UN Charter recognises that all member states have the inherent right of individual or collective self defence against armed attack until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

On 29 November the Security Council, noting the persistent refusal of Iraq to comply with its previous resolutions in flagrant contempt of the Council, adopted a further resolution. Since it is this Resolution No. 678 which provides the basis on which military action has now been taken I should like to spell out its terms in some detail.

In its first paragraph the resolution decided on what it called a "pause of goodwill" to allow Iraq one final opportunity to comply. In its second paragraph the resolution went on to authorise "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement" [the previous resolutions] and "to restore international peace and security in the area" unless Iraq fully implemented those resolutions on or before 15 January 1991. In its third and final paragraph the resolution "requested all states to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2..."

this Resolution, adopted validly and in due form by the Council, is not a decision on military action of the kind which may be taken directly by the Security Council itself under Article 42. Rather what the Council has done in this case is to authorise "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait:""to use all necessary means" to uphold and implement its resolutions. No member state is obliged to take action under this provision but any who choose to do so are given full authority to act to that end in co-operation with the Government of Kuwait. The term "all necessary means" is clearly broad enough to include the use of military force.

The "pause of goodwill" allowed by the Council in paragraph 1 of the resolution lasted from the end of November until 15 January this year. During that period every effort was made by distinguished individuals, and by a wide variety of Governments, to induce Iraq to comply with its clear obligations so that the terrible final step of resort to arms would be averted. Indeed, there can seldom have been so many efforts, extending right across the international community, to avert a war. Of particular importance of course were the meeting between the US Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, and the Iraq Foreign Minister in Geneva last week and the final effort to persuade Iraq to draw back from the brink made by the United Nations Secretary General who travelled to Bagdad last weekend to meet with the Iraqi President.

For its part, as explained in our statement yesterday, the Irish Government in discussions with our EC partners actively supported all efforts aimed at achieving a peaceful outcome. Without accepting that the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait could be justified by reference to any other act of illegality in the region or elsewhere, we were nevertheless prepared to join with a number of our partners in the Twelve in giving an assurance that we intended to contribute actively to the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict by urging the convocation at an appropriate time of an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations.

We also supported a last minute effort by France. This proposed to assure Iraq that if, before the Security Council deadline, it announced its intention to withdraw completely from Kuwait according to a set timetable, then a series of steps could be taken to facilitate this. The UN Secretary General, for example, would assist by sending UN observers to supervise this withdrawal and a peace-keeping force for which Arab countries would be asked to supply troops could be put in place. It would also have been possible to give a guarantee to Iraq of no military intervention. Obviously also in that situation, once the Security Council resolutions had been complied with and legality restored, the sanctions imposed on Iraq would have been lifted completely.

All of these efforts came to nothing. In every case they ran up against the insurmountable obstacle of Iraq's obduracy and its claim that Kuwait no longer existed but was now simply part of the territory of Iraq.

In face of this flat refusal by Iraq to take any step to end its flagrant breach of the most fundamental principle of international law, and its continuing defiance of the clear will of the entire international community, a number of the states which had sent forces to the Gulf made it clear repeatedly that with the expiry of the deadline they would feel it necessary to resort to military force, in accordance with the broad authority "to use all necessary means" granted to them by Security Council Resolution 678. Iraq listened, but did not hear or show any sign of willingness to seek a peaceful solution.

Now there is war with all its suffering and terror. We view this with the most profound regret. A war which pits a million troops, armed with modern high technology weapons, against each other cannot but be destructive. Many will lose their lives and the full and tragic consequences are yet to be seen. And it is surely the peoples of Iraq and Kuwait, caught as they are between the brutal tyranny imposed on them by Saddam Hussein and the destruction which is now likely to be visited on them, who will be the greatest and most tragic losers.

We in Ireland are at some remove from the immediate effects as this most tragic drama is played out but no one can be indifferent or unaffected. I should like, therefore, to set out clearly the Government's position on the issue which underlies the conflict.

Ireland has always been one of the countries most strongly committed to the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs. It is vital in our view that there be an international code of conduct to regulate what would otherwise be the anarchic relations between sovereign states. We have always believed that it is small states and nations like our own, who have fought to assert their rights and their own identity through history, who particularly need an effective international organisation to provide a structure of justice and order in international life. Without such a structure the bigger and more powerful states will no doubt survive by arming intensively to defend themselves but the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong, as has been the case through much of history.

Ireland has, therefore, always worked with other countries to build an effective international organisation based on the rule of law. Successive Irish Governments did this for example in the League of Nations, which we joined soon after our own State came into being. In his address to the Council of the League in September 1932, the new President of the Council, Éamon de Valera warned that:

The only alternative to competitive armaments is the security for national rights which an uncompromising adherence to the principles of the Covenant will afford. The avoidance of wars and of the burden of preparatory armaments is of such concern to humanity that no State should be permitted to jeopardise the common interest by selfish action contrary to the Covenant, and no State is powerful enough to stand for long against the League if the Governments in the League and their peoples are determined that the Covenant shall be upheld.

This has also been our consistent approach to the United Nations, which is the second effort in this century, after the League crumbled in face of aggression in the 1930s, to build a world of order and justice through an international organisation of sovereign states based on the principle of collective security.

What does collective security mean? Quite simply, it means all the member states of the United Nations pledge to accept the Charter as their code of conduct in international relations and agree to act collectively, in accordance with the Charter and through the organs it has established, against any of their number who clearly and persistently violates it.

In the present case, Iraq by its takeover of Kuwait first grossly violated the charter and then persisted in that violation by ignoring the clear decisions of the Security Council. We have had good relations with Iraq. But there could be no doubt about our fundamental approach to its seizure of Kuwait or our support for the mandatory sanctions imposed by the Council aimed at forcing it to let go. We know, of course, the cultural and historical complexity of the problems of the region; and we are aware, too, that many of its present-day troubles can be traced back to an arbitrary pattern of state boundaries imposed — mainly by western powers — after the first World War. But whatever the complexities of the past, Iraq and Kuwait were neighbouring Arab countries, accepted by each other as sovereign states, fellow members of the United Nations for many years and fellow members of the Arab League; and yet Iraq had simply swallowed Kuwait.

The Security Council showed a rare degree of unity in its reaction; and the sanctions against Iraq which it adopted were the most comprehensive set of sanctions ever put in place. For our part we would have profoundly wished to see those sanctions achieve their objective; and we regret most profoundly that the confrontation with Iraq has now turned to war. It would have been our profoundest wish to see that war averted but we are in no doubt on which side right lies in this conflict and in no doubt who has been the aggressor. We reluctantly accept that in the circumstances war became unavoidable.

Let there be no doubt. This is not a war of Arab against the West or of Islam against Christendom; nor is it a war to achieve justice for the Palestinians or a peace conference on the Middle East. It is a war which began with a clear act of aggression. That aggression has now evoked a military response after months of effort to avert such an outcome proved unavailing; and those who have had recourse to military action are acting under an authorisation from the Security Council whose decisions we are committed under the UN Charter to accept and on which, under Article 24, we have conferred primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Ireland has a long and honourable record of peace-keeping in the service of the United Nations, but we will not be a belligerent in this military action which those engaged in it have undertaken to secure enforcement of decisions of the UN Security Council. The issue we may have to face, however, is not likely to be that of becoming an active participant in the conflict. It is more likely to be whether to give facilities or active support to the actions which other states have taken under paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 of 29 November, if we are requested to do so.

Let me say clearly that at this stage we have received no such request from any of the other countries involved, other than a request to allow six American aircraft to refuel at Shannon in August of last year well before the present issues of military action to enforce the Security Council resolutions arose. At that time, our decision was to grant these facilities on the basis that the United States was a friendly country which had been asked by some of the weaker countries of the Gulf region to support them in their efforts at self-defence against aggression under Article 51 of the UN Charter. These limited facilities, which were granted, did not of course affect in any way our position as a State which has traditionally followed a policy of military neutrality.

If any similar requests were to be received in the new situation of military conflict which has now arisen, they would be considered carefully by the Government; and in any such consideration we would take full account of two points — our fundamental commitment to the UN Charter; and the very specific request addressed by the competent UN body, the Security Council to "all States", in paragraph 3 of Resolution 678 to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken under its authority.

I would like briefly to refer to some constitutional issues which have been discussed in recent days. Article 28.3.1º of the Constitution states: War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann. The question of declaring war or participating in the Gulf War did not or does not arise. Whether any role adopted or action taken by the Government in relation to a Gulf war would constitute participation in that war is, in the last analysis, a question of substance and degree. For example, if the State were to provide combat troops or other personnel fighting or working with the forces of the participating States in the actual conduct of military hostilities, clearly it could be treated as participation by Ireland in the war.

What may occur is something very different. The United States may wish to use Shannon Airport for the landing and refuelling of aircraft carrying US forces. Merely to permit the use of a civilian airport in this manner is not of sufficient degree or substance to constitute participating in the war. It would place an extraordinary strain on ordinary language if the mere granting of peripheral facilities could be interpreted as making Ireland a participant in the war.

A decision to grant such facilities would be a policy decision in the field of external relations. The policy basis for such a decision would include the fact that Ireland, as a member of the United Nations, supports the resolutions of the Security Council and the wording of Resolution 678 which states, inter alia that the Security Council

Authorises Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before January 15th, 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing Resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of this Resolution.

Article 29.4.1 provides that "the executive power of the State in or in connection with its external relations shall in accordance with Article 28 of this Constitution be exercised by or on the authority of the Government".

The Government, therefore, have the capacity to decide and implement policy decisions in the field of external relations and since they are not proposing either to declare war or to participate in the Gulf War the assent of Dáil Éireann would not be required.

In face of a challenge as great as this the UN Charter must be upheld. If the UN should crumble as did the League of Nations and if the Charter should lose its relevance as the rule of law, then the underlying anarchy of relations between States would quickly reassert itself so that each would again have good reason to fear every other. To adapt what Eamon de Valera said in different circumstances to the League of Nations in 1932 — we must show unmistakably that the Charter "is a solemn pact, the obligations of which no State great or small will find it possible to ignore".

It is even possible to hope that this time out of this nettle war the United Nations' system of collective security may emerge strengthened by this demonstration of the member states' willingness to confront aggression.

With regard to the safety of Irish military personnel and their dependants in the Middle East I have been assured by the Chief of Staff that there is no need to evacuate UNIFIL personnel at the present time, and that the threat to them is considered low on account of the distance between them and the Gulf, and also their distance from any likely targets outside the immediate Gulf area. Nevertheless, extra security precautions have been taken, including a higher state of alert and the provision of the Irish contingent with protective clothing and respirators. Eighteen dependants of Irish UNIFIL personnel located in Israel have been evacuated as a precautionary measure. All military personnel who formed part of the Iran-Iraq military observer group and who were based in Baghdad have, however, been evacuated to Cyprus, until the situation in the Gulf stabilises.

I conclude with an appeal which I believe will echo the most profound hopes and fervent prayers of the people of Ireland who for some time now had cherished a great hope, shared by millions around the world, that we were at last entering an era of world peace. To our grievous disappointment, however, the awful voice of the gun began to speak and diplomacy and the ways of peace seem to have failed. Diplomacy nevertheless must continue — more intensively now than ever. We appeal for every possible effort to shorten the conflict and, even while it continues, to make every effort to resolve the crisis peacefully, for the sake of the peoples of Iraq and Kuwait, of the other countries of the region and of the world.

Mr. J. Bruton

The issue before the House today is a simple one: will we or will we not have an international order in which the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of small nations are protected? As Mr. De Valera pointed out in recommending Irish membership of the United Nations in this House in 1946, small nations have a much greater interest in collective security than large ones. Rather than being reluctant to support United Nations resolutions, small nations, like Ireland, should be in the forefront in looking for an effective United Nations which can enforce its will throughout the world. That is something the Government should have explained more clearly to the Irish people in the past weeks. They had not really made their position on UN collective security clear until this debate in the House today. For that reason alone the recall of the Dáil is worthwhile because it has forced the Government to state their position on this issue clearly.

On 2 August 1990 the Iraqi army overran Kuwait. In the eyes of Iraq Kuwait had ceased to exist. This is the first time since the United Nations was founded that one United Nations member sought by force to wipe another off the map. It is important to stress the horrific precedent involved here, if the world allows it to become the accepted norm of international behaviour that one United Nations member can wipe another off the map, then we are descending to an era of international chaos.

There is room for argument whether a Government decision to refuel UN forces' aircraft at Shannon requires explicit Dáil approval; I will deal with that later but, where there is any doubt at all, it is better that the Dáil should give explicit approval. In this sense, today's motion is not clear enough. The Dáil should be asked to give explicit assent and, having been asked, should most definitely give that assent.

The key issue in this debate is not a constitutional argument about whether selling fuel to UN forces constitutes "participation in war" within the meaning of the Constitution. The key issue in this debate is whether, on the one hand, we believe that Ireland's interests as a small and relatively defenceless nation are served by support of a world-wide United Nations enforced — I stress the "enforced"— system of collective security or, on the other hand, that the United Nations should not be able to enforce their resolutions and that the defence of small nations should be left to themselves or to whatever allies they can find? Fine Gael believe that we should follow the first course. We believe that we should have a UN enforced, world-wide system of collective security. Those who say today that we should not provide support in accordance with the UN resolution, who favour some form of neutrality as between the United Nations and Iraq, are abandoning the principle of collective, world-wide security. Their policy is, quite literally, perverse. Their policy is one under which a small nation would actually be forced, by the absence of a United Nations system of collective security, into forming military alliances to defend themselves. I know that this is exactly what the Labour Party and The Workers' Party say they want to avoid but the logical conclusion of failing to have a system of United Nations enforced collective security is that small countries would be forced to form alliances to defend themselves or to arm themselves to the teeth. That is not what The Workers' Party say they want but it is the logical conclusion of the policy they are adopting in ths House.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Bruton

You cannot maintain a policy of neutrality unless you have a system of collective, world-wide security enforced by the United Nations. In that sense, the policy of The Workers' Party and the policy of the Labour Party is, in the literal meaning of the term, perverse. Fine Gael believe that the Government motion is insufficiently clear in its support of the United Nations. We want this House to make as strong as possible a declaration of support for the United Nations and for its stand on this issue. We will not, therefore, seek to amend the Government motion, we will support it and we will oppose the amendments of the Labour Party and the The Workers' Party to it.

If we fail to support the United Nations we will be creating a world in which everyone will have to be well armed to defend themselves. It would be a case of every State for itself. Let us consider the implications of that, for example, for the Third World. Already the combined military expenditure of the world exceeds the combined annual income of the poorest half of humanity. The Third World is already spending substantially more on defence than it gets in humanitarian aid from the developed world. If it becomes acceptable that a larger country in the Third World or elsewhere can get away with annexing by force a smaller one then all Third World countries will have to escalate their defence expenditure even further in order to protect themselves in that world of international chaos. Even more of the limited resources of those poor countries will then be soaked up in arms if we fail to maintain a system of UN collective security. There is only one way to stop that arms race escalating, by having an effective system of collective international security.

That is why we must support the United Nations Charter and the United Nations resolutions. These resolutions provide an opportunity to create a world in which there will be control over aggression on a collective basis. Unarmed neutrality of the kind that Ireland has pursued is only possible if there is collective security. That is what the left-wing parties in this House have quite simply forgotten. Let us not forget that it was the failure to maintain a proper system of collective security which led directly to the Second World War. The League of Nations failed in 1935. The United Nations must not be allowed to fail in 1991.

Look at the history of the League of Nations: Article 16 of the Charter of the League said that if one member resorted to war all members would impose, of their own accord, a total and immediate boycott of the aggressor states. Hardly was the ink dry on those words in the League Charter than the League decided to reinterpret it as some would have us reinterpret our United Nations obligations to say that "immediate and total" did not mean "immediate and total" at all but simply a gradual and partial form of sanctions. It was downhill from then on for the League of Nations.

The only time the League actually used the collective security provisions of its Charter was when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 but the sanctions against Italy were applied in such a half-hearted way that it became obvious the League had no capacity to enforce its will. That created precisely the climate that would again be created in the world in which we now live if the United Nations is seen to fail in dealing with the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait. Italy got away with it in 1935. Other annexations quickly followed and within a year or two Germany annexed Czechoslovakia and Austria while Italy annexed Albania. The stage was set for the Second World War and it could all be traced to the failure of will of the League of Nations in backing up sanctions against Italy in 1935.

After the bitter experience of the Second World War caused by that collapse of collective security, the world's statesmen were determined that this would not happen again. This view was enthusiastically supported at that time by Ireland. The United Nations created after the Second World War was specifically designed to be a much stronger body than the League of Nations had been. It was given much clearer authority and decision-making power. The imposition of sanctions was not left to the discretion of member states, the cause of the failure of the League of Nations. Article 41 of the United Nations Charter gives the Security Council legal authority to order diplomatic and economic sanctions on behalf of all United Nations members while Article 42 gives it the authority to order military sanctions.

Dáil Éireann decided — I want to remind the Members of this House of the positions taken by their own parties in this matter — in the full knowledge of these obligations, that it would join the United Nations. That happened in July 1946. The case for a system of collective security was stated with absolute clarity at that time by the Deputies in that debate. The then Taoiseach, Mr. Eamon de Valera, stated at column 1312 of the Official Report of 24 July 1946:

Small nations have a particular reason for wishing to have security maintained by combined or collective effort. The greater Powers may be able to preserve their own independence against attack from other great States, but a small nation finds it extremely difficult, if it is attacked, to protect itself.

Mr. de Valera went on to point out that our UN obligations might well involve us in doing things we might not want to do. He gave the example of a state with whom we had friendly relations doing something against another state with whom we had no friendly relations; yet, he said, and the House agreed with him, that if the Security Council decided, we would be bound to participate in any enforcement measures against the state with whom we had friendly relations and in favour of the State with whom we had no friendship at all simply because — to use Mr. de Valera's words — the Security Council had decided that it should be so. Those are the obligations this House and the Labour Party accepted at that time.

Mr. de Valera stressed that in joining the United Nations we were agreeing, in advance, that in certain circumstances we would, and I use his words again, "go to war at the bidding of the Security Council". That did not prevent the application for membership of the United Nations being supported by all parties in the Dáil. It was supported on behalf of Fine Gael from these benches by the late Deputy Dick Mulcahy. The Labour Party also supported it strongly. Let me quote from what I would regard as the best speech in that debate, the speech of the late Deputy Bill Norton, the Leader of the Labour Party. He said at column 1343 of the Official Report of 24 July 1946:

In short, the object of the United Nations Organisation is to use force against those who, in the judgment of the Security Council, attempt to break world peace; in other words, to go to war so as to prevent a world war.

He clearly saw that this was essential to the success of the United Nations and to the preservation of world peace. He stated the United Nations could not be allowed to fail as the League had failed. He said at column 1345:

If the United Nations Organisation is to meet the same fate as that which awaited the League of Nations, then not only those States who are members of the United Nations Organisation but every country throughout the world, may, within a relatively short space of time, be precipitated into the cauldron of world destruction.

Those words are as true today as when Deputy Bill Norton spoke them on behalf of the Labour Party in 1946. He also dealt with the impact of membership of the United Nations on Ireland's policy of neutrality. He said at column 1347:

I think that in the event of a global war which would follow the break-up of the United Nations Organisation, neutrality for this or any other small or large country would be an utter impossibility.

Those on the Left who today seek to plead the case that neutrality in some way removes Ireland's obligations to support the United Nations should remember those very clear words of the then Leader of the Labour Party on 24 July 1946 in this House. He exactly foresaw the situation which now exists in the Middle East and which this House now faces. He said at column 1346:

If the United Nations Organisation hangs together, only small wars are possible and they will probably be of short duration, inasmuch as an effective and efficiently operating United Nations Organisation would mean that the whole world would take the field against one or two aggressors.

That is what is happening in the Gulf today. It was foreseen in 1946 by the then Leader of the Labour Party when he supported clear-sightedly Ireland's application to join the United Nations. The Left do not seem to see matters as clearly today as they saw them in 1946.

It will be argued that the United Nations since 1946 has not prevented all wars, but it has certainly prevented us from having a world war of the kind which broke out in 1914 and again in 1939. If the United Nations has not prevented all aggression it is because it was paralysed by the Cold War. The Security Council can only act through the unanimous agreement of five permanent members.

Because of the Cold War it was not possible until recently to get all five permanent members to agree on decisions to enforce collective security. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall all this has now changed. It is now possible, as never before, to introduce a fully functioning system of collective international security. It is now possible, as never before, for the United Nations to become as fully effective as was envisaged by those who drafted its charter. It is now possible, as never before, for the United Nations to function in the way that Dáil Éireann foresaw it functioning when it decided on 24 July 1946 that Ireland should join the United Nations. I hope Dáil Éireann on 18 January 1991 will not retreat from the clear vision, and the unanimous vision, of collective international security which led to the unanimous and clear decision of this House in July 1946 to apply to join the United Nations.

Some arguments will be put forward to the effect that the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq is not annexation in the real meaning of the term. Some will claim, for example, that Iraq and Kuwait were both once part of the Ottoman Empire. That historical fact has been adduced to justify in some way the Iraqi invasion. If that sort of argument is permitted to justify annexation then it will be open season to aggression all over the world. Borders have changed and rechanged many times throughout history. Once states join the United Nations — I want to stress this — and both Iraq and Kuwait joined the United Nations, they accept solemnly not to upset existing boundaries by force. The application by Iraq to join the United Nations stops Iraq from using any historic argument to justify the attempt to alter the boundaries of its state by force. Nobody on Iraq's behalf should adduce that argument. If they do so they reject the United Nations Charter and the principles on which it is based.

The argument is also put forward that the Palestinians have a just cause and that there are problems in the Middle East that need to be solved as well as the issue of the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait. Of course there are many other problems to be resolved but that does not justify the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait. Remember, it was not the Palestinian cause that triggered the Iraqi invasion on 2 August. Iraq justified its annexation at that time on the basis that Kuwait was undermining its economy by overproducing oil and because there were disagreements between Iraq and Kuwait over the repayment of an interest free loan Kuwait had given to Iraq. The issue of Palestine was not mentioned at all as a justification for the annexation of Kuwait. Of course, the issue has been raised later as a diversion, and that is all it is.

The Government resolution before this House today is that the Dáil:

Declares its full support for the decisions of the Security Council and notes that Resolution 678, inter alia, “requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of this Resolution”;

The resolution does not state, however, precisely what this present Government view as appropriate support. The Government should ask Dáil Éireann for its explicit approval for appropriate support to be given. Simply declaring support for the resolutions and noting a particular part of them does not actually say Dáil Éireann approves the giving of any particular measure of support. I do not understand why the Government have chosen this deliberately obscure wording for their resolution. The third paragraph of the resolution should have stated unambiguously that Dáil Éireann resolves to provide appropriate support to the UN.

Article 28.3 of the Constitution has already been quoted by the Taoiseach. The Government say that the granting of refuelling facilities to military aircraft does not involve participation in war within the meaning of that Article. Presumably any refuelling facilities will be normal commercial operations of a kind that occurs on a daily basis for other aircraft not engaged in war. Some lawyers have stated that even providing such refuelling facilities could be construed as participation in war. Others with whom I have consulted take the opposite view; yet others agree with the Government's view. For example, would one contend that someone selling beef that is used to feed some of the armed forces of a belligerent nation is participating in war? If that is participation in war then there is a question mark over whether Ireland was neutral in the last war, in that we clearly sold goods to one of the belligerents. It is a moot point. There is doubt, and it is the Government's obligation to create clarity. The Government should, as I have asked them, publish the legal advice thay have to the effect that refuelling facilities are not equivalent to participation in war within the meaning of the Constitution.

Otherwise I have no problems with the terms of the Government motion. In particular I support strongly the call for the continuation of diplomatic efforts to secure an end to the present conflict. It is a matter of great sadness to all of us that hostilities have commenced, but that does not mean diplomatic action must cease. Only now, perhaps, many Iraqis recognise the extent to which they are isolated in the world. It is to be hoped that that realisation will prompt their government to withdraw, even at this late stage, from Kuwait. Any diplomatic initiative that can encourage them to do so now rather than in some weeks time when many more lives will have been lost should be taken. Obviously, any such diplomatic effort must be directed at the restoration of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Kuwait.

As I have said, in the last week statements made by the Irish Government have failed to stress Ireland's paramount interest in maintaining collective international security through the UN. Some of the statements by the Government could even be interpreted as disapproval in principle of the idea of any UN military action to enforce collective security. Indeed, the Minister for Foreign Affairs described the assembly of the UN forces as frightening. That could be interpreted as disapproval, but that is again a moot point. I believe any request for refuelling facilities at Shannon should be granted. It is very important that the war be ended quickly. Refuelling facilities by easing the supply of UN sanctioned forces may assist in speeding up a conclusion to the war. I want to say, carefully, that in view of Ireland's strategic interest in the UN based system of collective security Ireland should, of its own accord, actively seek out other non-combative ways in which to help the UN effort. We should not wait to be asked as if the whole matter really had nothing to do with us or our interest as a small nation in collective security.

It is not a matter on which we are neutral or on which we have no opinion. We have an opinion. We want the UN effort to succeed because as a small nation we need a strong United Nations to support us. It is not a matter on which we are neutral and we should not simply sit back and wait for others to ask. We should ask ourselves if there is any help, short of military involvement, of a non-combative kind, that we can give. World peace depends on a strong United Nations. Weakness, allowing UN Resolutions and decisions to be flouted, undermines this authority and undermines world peace. We are then, especially small nations, exposed to chaos. Ireland must fully support the UN. It would be infinitely preferable if the Government had stated this more clearly earlier than today. Indeed the Government seem to have been terrified by the rhetoric flowing from the old-fashioned parties on my right. The Government have felt forced by that rhetoric to cloud their thinking in jargon. Even in this motion they have failed to spell out clearly this House's approval of providing facilities to the UN. Even in this motion they have failed to speak clearly.

What are the Government afraid of in this? The Government should speak clearly and state that we fully support the UN's efforts, that we want them brought to a speedy conclusion, that we simultaneously support diplomatic efforts to get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait in order that they can be brought to a speedy conclusion, but that in the meantime we support the UN resolution wholeheartedly. Rather than simply waiting for others to tell us what they want us to do we should at least ask ourselves what we can do of a non-combative kind that will help. As a small nation we have a great and over-riding interest in the preservation of collective international security. Just as Dáil Éireann was unanimous in 1946 in applying to join the UN because it believed in collective — I stress the word — and enforced international security through the UN, Dáil Éireann should be unanimous on this occasion. The parties of the Left should be as clear sighted in 1991 as the parties of the Left were in 1946. There were no ifs, buts or qualifications about the view of Deputy Bill Norton in 1946 and there should be no ifs, buts or qualifications about the attitude of the Left wing parties in this House on this occasion in regard to the principle of collective enforced international security. You cannot maintain neutrality if you are not armed in a world that does not have collective international security, and that can be created only through the UN and the UN will function only if all its members support it. For that reason I quite simply do not understand, given the exemplary history of particularly one of the parties on the Left in this House at the moment and the fact that the best speech on this subject was made in 1946 by the then leader of the Labour Party, how the Labour Party and the other Left wing parties fail to see that neutrality requires collective security. You cannot advocate a policy of neutrality without supporting the enforcement of collective security. For that reason the policy of the Left on this occasion is quite literally perverse. Being perverse it should be reversed.

Mr. Spring

I rise to speak in this very important debate on behalf of the Labour Party and to move our amendment, but before doing so I should say I am quietly bemused by those comments from Deputy Bruton. Maybe I should be quite content to be accused by Deputy Bruton of having perverse politics. In fact, there may be some hope in that for the Labour Party and, indeed, parties of the Left in Irish politics. It would be rather sad to think nothing has changed since 1946 but, needless to say, Deputy Bruton does not see that any changes have taken place. Major changes have taken place and I will elaborate on those in the course of my contribution. I am glad also that Deputy John Bruton has chosen to undertake some research and quote a former Leader of the Labour Party, the late Deputy Bill Norton. It is the first time I have heard Deputy Bruton quote a speech of a former Leader of the Labour Party. I welcome that. Obviously, he was not that concerned on other occasions in resorting to advice or assistance from the Labour Party.

In 1946 the situation was very different from that we now face. I would contend that Deputy Norton's comments should be kept within the context of the position this country faced in 1946 when the Cold War had not broken out and the United Nations had not become paralysed because of it.

The Labour Party have always supported Ireland's efforts within the United Nations, our peace-keeping forces, or military involvement, within the United Nations. But we must also be very conscious of the fact that this debate is taking place in 1991, not in 1946, and that everything in that context has changed.

I wish now to move amendment No. 1 to the Government motion:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"Condemns the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, and calls on Iraq to immediately withdraw from occupation of that country. Dáil Éireann also expresses its grave concern at the outbreak of war in the Gulf, and its horror at the certainty of large-scale destruction and loss of life. Dáil Éireann believes that the outbreak of war in the Gulf represents a fundamental failure of the so-called new world order in the face of the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and in particular regrets that economic sanctions have not been given adequate time to work.

Dáil Éireann reaffirms that Ireland is a country committed to the pacific resolution of international disputes and cannot become a military participant in this war. Dáil Éireann notes that the United Nations Charter provides, inter alia, that:

‘All members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and members or between the Security Council and groups of members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.'

Arising from this, Dáil Éireann notes that

1. The United Nations Charter deals specifically with the need to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.

2. No request for facilities under this Article can be made by any body other than the Security Council of the United Nations and any such request must be the subject of a negotiated agreement.

3. Any such agreement will be subject to ratification in accordance with our constitutional process.

4. That constitutional process quite clearly involves a mandatory recourse to the Dáil.

5. It was the view of the Irish Government in the past that no request by the Security Council was itself mandatory.

Accordingly, Dáil Éireann believes that Ireland, as a militarily neutral nation, should not participate in any belligerent aspect of the war. Dáil Éireann further believes that the role that should be played by Ireland in this war should consist of the following:

— We should be prepared to assist in any humanitarian way possible to alleviate the suffering that the war will cause;

— We should be prepared to participate in any peace-keeping effort promoted ultimately by the United Nations, including the deployment of Irish troops in a peace-keeping role.

By the time this debate is over perhaps 20,000 people will be dead in the Gulf and many thousands more maimed and injured. The dead and injured will include soldiers and civilians, men, women and children. One in ten will have died from extensive burns and up to half will have died from brain damage. Many of those injured will suffer from psychiatric conditions for the rest of their lives. Those are the stark realities.

The statistics of death and suffering will grow over the coming week-end. They will be compounded by the abject horrible terror with which hundreds of thousands of families in the Gulf will have to cope. We are debating this war in the relative comfort of this House and from this distance. We can have no real concept of the suffering the war is causing and, perhaps, will cause for many years to come. Yet, in so far as I can determine it would appear this House will decide, by a massive majority this afternoon, to give the Government what amounts to carte blanche to make any contribution to this war effort that they see fit. So far, we have not been told what that contribution is likely to be; we have all assumed that it relates to landing rights in Shannon International Airport, to be given out at the request of the United States authorities. But after this debate, assuming the Government resolution is passed, the Government will claim that this House has given them total approval to any action they decide to undertake in the future.

This is the same Government that, up to yesterday, argued that it was not necessary to consult the Dáil at all. This is the same Government that failed up to today to spell out any position whatever in relation to the complex and difficult issues involved. This is the same Government that preferred to deal with this matter as if they were totally unaccountable to the Irish people or to the Irish Constitution. It is clear now, if nothing else is clear, that the advice available to the Government from their Attorney General was ambiguous at best — because I have no doubt whatever that the Government would not be coming in here today seeking the support of the Dáil if they felt they had any alternative course of action open to them.

In this connection it is important to point out that the Government appear to be willing to say one thing in their public statement issued yesterday and a quite different thing in the motion before us. To be specific, the Government were willing to say in a press release that, "Ireland will not participate in the Gulf War". Why has this phrase not appeared in the motion before us, especially as the Government have argued that the landing rights they want to offer to the Americans do not constitute participation in the war? Are the Government merely trying to preserve the facade of neutrality and legality — or are they afraid they might have to agree to some further participation in the future, and trying to avoid bringing these matters before this House?

At present, this debate is about one issue, as far as we have been told, and one issue only. The Government, despite their denials, know that there is a request on the way from the United States for the use of refuelling facilities in Ireland for American military aircraft. The Government have decided in principle to accede to that request. We are being asked today to provide constitutional cover for that decision, and for any other decisions that the Government may make in the future.

Let me immediately state my position as unambiguously as possible in relation to the refuelling of military aircraft. The moment we agree to any such request — and let there be no mistake about this — we cease to be a militarily neutral nation. Under international law, in any military conflict, there are two kinds of states only — belligerent, and neutral. If we are refuelling the aircraft of a belligerent state, we forfeit the right to call ourselves neutral.

That may be what the Government and the Dáil decide to do today. It may be what the people of Ireland want done, but certainly I doubt it. Let us, at the very least, not renounce our neutrality here today without realising what we are doing. We cannot decide that we are a neutral nation today and a belligerent one tomorrow. Once we decide to abandon our neutrality we will do so for good and for all.

I will not vote to do so. I will not vote to allow military aircraft of any nation the right to refuel in Ireland on their way to or from their work of destruction. But I will say this: I would be prepared to offer landing rights and refuelling facilities to any aircraft, of any nation, that wants to use such facilities for humanitarian purposes. If those aircraft are carrying medical supplies or personnel to a war zone, or if they are carrying wounded personnel away from that zone, I say they should be made welcome here. We do not need to know in whose cause they were hurt: all we need to know is that people who are wounded or dying must never be turned away from our facilities.

I must also say this to the House: not all of my colleagues in the Labour Party, and I am sure in other parties, agree with the position I am outlining. Some feel strongly, and with conviction, that the tyranny and brutality of Saddam Hussein is such, that the threat he poses to peace and security is so great, we should not shirk the task of removing him by military means, or of supporting those means.

I respect those views when they are held with conviction, even though I might disagree with them. I find it hard, however, to respect such views when I believe they are held for reasons of expedience. There are many Members on the Government benches, who will vote this evening to end our military neutrality, who would have voted in precisely the opposite way if they were on the Opposition benches today.

The main reason the Government motion is based merely on expedience is because it is deeply flawed in its arguments. Not only does it fail to mention any resolution to the effect that Ireland will not participate in the war in a belligerent sense, even though that is what the Government are saying, but it also lifts one phrase of part of a series of United Nations resolutions completely out of context, and seeks to subvert the meaning of that phrase to imply an obligation under the United Nations Charter which does not exist.

UN Resolution 678 of 1990 is part of a series of 12 resolutions dealing with the brutal invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. Each of those resolutions refers to the others, and more particularly, each of those resolutions describes the United Nations, in this context, as acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Resolution 678, just like all the other relevant resolutions, is subject to Chapter VII — it has no context otherwise.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter deals with, "action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression". Nowhere in Chapter VII is there imposed an obligation on any member state to acquiesce to the requests or demands of any other member state or group of member states — even groups of member states acting with the authorisation of the Security Council. In fact, the reverse is the case. Chapter VII rests all responsibility in the Security Council itself to (1) determined when an act of aggression has occurred, under Article 39; (2) decide what action not including the use of armed force should be taken, for instance, economic sanctions, under Articles 40 and 41; (3) decide on military action if the Council considers that sanctions would be inadequate, or after it has decided that sanctions have proved to be inadequate, under Article 42. Then, and only then, does the Security Council embark on the process outlined in Article 43, which I have already read to the House as it is contained in our amendment. That process, it should be remembered, includes the granting by member states of armed forces or facilities if the Security Council asks for them, and subject to an agreement negotiated by the Security Council with the member state.

So what we have here is a situation which, whatever it is, cannot be described as a situation in which the Irish Government are bound by their UN obligations. The Security Council has not at any time made the determination required under Article 42 that economic sanctions have failed to be effective; the Security Council has not requested us to grant landing rights; the Security Council has not sought to negotiate any agreement with us.

This is not an area of which we in Ireland have no experience. We have negotiated a number of such agreements with the United Nations Security Council in the past, under Article 43, in the interests of international peace and security. Our soldiers have gone abroad to fight and sometimes to die - in the Congo, in Cyprus, in the Lebanon, even on the Iran/Iraq border - under the terms of such agreements. But they have all been peace-keeping missions, organised by the Security Council. The mission on which the coalition of allies against Hussein is engaged now, is a mission of war, and it is being undertaken without any determination by the Security Council that all other measures have failed.

Why has there been no such determination? On what basis have the Irish Government been persuaded to place before this House a motion which accepts that the use of force has become unavoidable? By what criteria has this judgment been arrived at? I have not seen objective evidence that sanctions have failed, or that they are failing. I have not even seen any evidence that anyone has been looking for such evidence. Instead, it has been obvious since early November, when the number of American troops in the Gulf was suddenly doubled, that the allies had moved from a defensive posture aimed at protecting Saudi Arabia to an offensive one, aimed at crushing Saddam Hussein. War has been inevitable since that point, unless Hussein surrendered.

We now know, after the attack on Israel last night, that Saddam Hussein has not been crushed, and it now appears likely that the war will escalate, leading ultimately to perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Despite what was said to the contrary this morning, this will not be a short, quick-fix war. It will be a long drawn out and very costly war with regard to all world resources. It appears inevitable that he will be beaten in the end, but the cost will be terrible, in terms of human lives and suffering. We can anticipate too that the consequences will linger for years. The bitterness that may yet result from this war could cause a wound that will fester between Islam and the rest of the world for years to come. In that context I find it all the more astonishing and inexcusable that no real effort has been made to take steps that fall short of war.

This conflict has been described as the most important since the end of the Second World War, and it may well turn out to be so. But I am reminded of another conflict that threatened to engulf the world in 1962, when America confronted Russia over the development of nuclear missile bases in Cuba. On that occasion the American President considered a range of options, including all-out military intervention. He decided instead after days and weeks of agonising, on a step by step approach aimed at increasing the pressure on Russia in an inexorable way but stopping short of all out war. That strategy included diplomatic pressure, including secret contact with Russia at the highest level, recourse to the United Nations, economic pressure, and ultimately a total blockade of the island of Cuba. The strategy worked and the world was rescued from what could have been a devastating conflict at that time. Why has a similar step by step approach to averting conflict by increasing pressure not been contemplated on this occasion?

Our amendment refers to the failure of the so-called new world order to deal with this conflict. In the last two years we have seen an outbreak of democracy in many parts of the world and the beginnings of hope that regional disputes could be resolved by civilised means, with former superpowers working together to end conflict. This regional dispute — for that is what it is — provided the first test of that new world order, and by such an easy recourse to war the new world order can be seen to have failed its first critical test.

Saddam Hussein is the creation of the old world order — tacitly supported by America in his war with Iran, armed by the Russians and the French, and for all we know with his army fed on Irish beef. The western world has been aware for many years of the atrocious human rights record of his regime and of the brutal way in which all decisions were made and implemented under his leadership. Figures like Saddam Hussein are at the end of the day, monsters, but it is we in the West who are the Frankensteins.

In the old world order there was nevertheless room for small countries committed to the specific settlement of disputes and determined to retain neutrality in military situations allied to an independent foreign policy. Are we now to say that in this new world order, allegedly full of hope, that there is to be no room for such countries? If that is what the new world order means, then what is the point of it? If we are to be sucked into military alliances precisely at the moment when hope is emerging of a new and civilised way of dealing with world affairs then what does the future hold?

I say now more than ever, that we should retain our determination to stand apart from military conflict and to offer ourselves in the role that we have always been prepared to play — as peacemakers, and as healers of the sick and wounded. That above all is the reason why I do not intend to vote to support this motion because once it is carried we will never again be able to describe ourselves as a nation committed only to the peaceful resolution of disputes.

The Government must stand condemned for their failure to allow this House to discuss this dispute until it was almost too late. In fact it may be too late. We have been deprived of the opportunity of making any meaningful contribution to the peace process by the determination of the Government that we are only to be consulted when decisions they have already made require to be rubber stamped. This is indeed regrettable.

But the Government stand condemned under other headings too. In particular it is abundantly clear that we are far from ready to meet the domestic requirements of this situation. Nowhere is this more true than in relation to our energy supply.

Today's newspapers carried full page advertisements exhorting every citizen to conserve energy to the maximum possible extent. Yet in the last few weeks we have been treated to a series of statements from the Government indicating that there was no problem with energy supply and that we had 120 days of strategic stocks available.

The Labour Party have tabled a series of questions to the Minister for Energy, who is due to answer parliamentary questions on the day the Dáil resumes, with a view to seeking clarification of the misleading information and advice emanating from the Department of Energy in relation to national reserves of petrol and diesel. In the light of the war that is now underway, we find it inexcusable that the Minister is apparently hiding behind a series of fudged statistics, and making no effort whatever to ensure that our strategic reserves are adequate to meet any emergency.

As I said, the Minister has at various times claimed that 120 days supply is available to him to meet any emergency. The INPC, on the other hand, have claimed no more than 75 days. The true facts, as of 10 January, are as follows: Operating stocks in Whitegate amount to 33 days of petrol and 14 days of diesel. The refinery has ordered another 16 days worth of petrol and 15 days of diesel, but has not yet got that in stock. If they had, they would have a total of about 50 days of petrol, and 30 of diesel. But these are operating stocks. They can only be removed from the refinery if they are replaced by further purchases, or from strategic stocks. If they were removed without being replaced, the refinery would have to close down.

Strategic stocks, on the other hand, amount to: 16 days of petrol held in Whiddy; 9 days of petrol held in Dublin and Limerick; 16 days of diesel held in Whiddy; 9 days of diesel held in Dublin and Cork.

In other words, a total of 25 days of petrol and 25 days of diesel. These are practical considerations. The truth is that any interruption of energy supply to Ireland will very quickly mean a short term crisis of considerable proportions. What I find impossible to understand is that the Government are fudging the reality and relying on people to conserve energy rather than concentrating on securing an adequate and stable supply. I find that particularly incomprehensible when I know in fact the Government have had in front of them for over a year a firm offer from Nigeria to maintain up to a half-a-million tonnes of crude oil in Whiddy Island as a strategic stock under the control of the Government for a minimum of 20 years — and that offer has never even been considered.

In conclusion I must come back to the fundamental question of principle underlying this debate. This House will make a decision today that will either confirm or irrevocably change the basic cornerstone of our foreign policy. We must not be deluded into thinking that the decision we are being asked to take today is a routine one. It will have major ramifications for years to come and it must be taken in that knowledge.

I do not stand here to defend the tyrant of Iraq or his activities in invading Kuwait. I have always accepted that he must be stopped in his expansionist ambitions. But the world in rejecting a patient step by step approach to increasing the pressure on him has made a wrong choice, and this will become more obvious in the coming months. We should not opt to be part of that choice. That is why I intend to vote against the Government today.

Proinsias De Rossa

Amendment No. 2 reads:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"(1) condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and calls for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops,

(2) condemns the decision of the United States and its allies to launch a military attack against Iraq, in the context of all peaceful options for a solution to the Gulf dispute not having been exhausted,

(3) calls for immediate ceasefire by all parties,

(4) urges all countries to work, under the auspices of the United Nations, for a peaceful resolution of the dispute, through non-violent measures including, if necessary, the strengthening of international sanctions,

(5) notes that the current offensive is not a United Nations operation but is being conducted solely by the United States and its allies, and that the UN or its officials do not have any influence or control over the conduct of the war,

(6) instructs the Government, in accordance with the principles of Article 29 of the Constitution, which commits the State to ‘the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination' to join with other neutral and non-aligned countries in seeking an emergency session of the General Assembly of the United Nations to explore possible ways of ending the war and settling the dispute without further loss of life,

(7) instructs the Government that the State shall not grant

(a) permission for the landing, refuelling, the overflying of aircraft (including military aircraft),

(b) permission for the presence of foreign military personnel, arms, ammunition, missiles or other instruments of war intended or designed for use in the course of or in connection with the armed conflict in the Gulf.

I would like to begin my contribution by quoting a very short excerpt from John Pilger's book Heroes, where he is describing the end of the Vietnam war. This short excerpt indicates, I think, what war is about.

As the first steaks were devoured and the rock band struck up, the Blue Ridge shuddered and moved forward, leaving the faces in the rusted craft still pleading to be taken on board. A box of Diet Cola was thrown down to them, but it missed and sank. They had been given, we were assured, five days supply of fresh water and a map. That their wretched craft was already sinking and the people would go nowhere, except down, was acknowledged; but still we steamed away. In one last, disconsolate gesture, which is embedded in my memory, a woman stood up and held out her baby as if to say, ‘At least take him’, and then she slipped, and they both fell into the sea.

We should bear that image in mind when we stand up in this House and argue in support of war, because that is the end result of war, the destruction of human life and hope, the abandonment of reason and of life.

Yesterday was a tragic day for those who value human life and who believe that war is an abomination. It was a black day for those who believe that the ending of the cold war had liberated the world from the constant threat of large scale armed conflict. It is particularly sad and tragic that a war should have been launched, which will cost so many casualties, when the stated objectives of the operation could have been achieved by peaceful means, had President George Bush been prepared to exercise patience and statesmanship, and resist the temptation to reach for his six-gun.

It must be said at the outset, once again that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was, as I described it in a public statement on 2 August ‘totally unjustified and a clear breach of all of the principles of international law'. This remains the position of The Workers' Party and we believe that the international community has a right to use all peaceful methods to secure an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

There are many myths about the current situation that need to be disposed of. The first myth is that this war is about democracy, freedom, international order, or ridding the world of tyrants or about respect for the United Nations. It is not. It is, as the Minister for Finance was honest enough to admit on "Today Tonight" last week, about oil, about access to it and about the cost of it. As has been said before, if the Kuwaitis produced carrots instead of oil, there would not be more than half a million troops mobilised to attack Iraq.

The United States, after years of ignoring, flouting and vetoing United Nations resolutions which did not suit it, has suddenly become its most ardent supporter. They have been able to take on a mantle of UN respectability because for once the United States happens to be opposing a breach of international law, rather than supporting or initiating that breach. The list of the US initiated or backed breaches of international law is virtually endless. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the invasion by NATO member Turkey of Cyprus, the annexation of East Timor by Indonesia, and the illegal South African occupation of Namibia — in defiance of the United Nations mandate — are just a few of the more blatant examples which were tolerated or supported by the United States.

The United States record within the United Nations has been characterised by repeated use of the veto to block motions critical of its own breaches of international law. A resolution in the Security Council in 1983, declaring illegal the invasion of Grenada was vetoed by the United States. The United States vetoed, even as a subject for discussion at the Security Council, the United States invasion of Panama in 1989, less than three years ago. The General Assembly, however, adopted by a vote of 75 to 20 a motion condemning the invasion as a flagrant violation of international law. There was no massive international task force assembled to enforce the United Nations position on Panama, nor should there have been.

I make these points not in any way to lessen the gravity of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but to illustrate that the position of the The United States and its allies on this matter reeks of hypocrisy.

We must understand quite clearly that the massive offensive launched against Iraq yesterday is not a United Nations operation. It is a war launched by the United States and its allies for their own strategic reasons. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, has said that he only learned of the attacks from the news media. Neither the United Nations, its Secretary General nor any of its officials have any say in the way in which the war is being conducted, what weapons will be used, what tactics will be employed, what the objectives of the war are, or when it will end.

Deputy Bruton, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, castigated me and The Workers' Party for having a perverse view on the issue of the United Nations. We have argued very strongly for collective security under the control of the United Nations, but what we have been seeing since yesterday is not the collective action of the United Nations. There is a United Nations procedure for taking action, but in this case that procedure has not been adopted. There are no blue berets being worn or United Nations flags being carried by the forces attacking Kuwait. Our commitment is to the United Nations command, flag and uniform. Indeed our troops have given their lives in support of the United Nations, in the need for peace and collective security. It is on those grounds that Deputy Bruton's attack on The Workers' Party collapses.

I believe very strongly — as do many others — that the United States was planning a military solution to this dispute from the very beginning. The troops were originally introduced to prevent what we were told in August would be a likely Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were assured that no offensive action would be launched from their soil. When it was clear that there was no prospect of such an invasion, their objectives were altered. The nature of the operation changed in October, long before the Security Council passed its Resolution 678 in November when President Bush sent another 200,000 troops to the Gulf. At that point, as Senator Ted Kennedy commented on RTE on Tuesday night, Operation Desert Shield became Operation Desert Sword — in other words it changed from a defensive operation to an offensive operation.

All the evidence suggests that even if the Security Council had declined to endorse Resolution 678, the Gulf would still be in flames today. The Security Council resolution has been used as a convenient umbrella for the United States to pursue its own strategic interests in a way that will do serious damage to the standing of the United Nations and, as Deputy Bruton fears, destroy its capacity to create collective security in the new world order that has been emerging since the collapse of the Cold War.

We do not know yet how many casualties there will be in this war, how many children will be left without parents, how many limbs will be torn off, how many eyes lost, how many charred bodies there will be left to rot under the Middle Eastern sun, how many homes destroyed, facilities wasted and lives destroyed. It is inconceivable that with such a massive level of air activity there will not have been and continue to be casualties on an appalling scale. It is extraordinary that despite the fact that the media are on the spot reporting the war, that not one picture has appeared on television or in print of a single dead body. Are we to assume that no one is being killed in this war? That is utter nonsense and it proves the point often made that the first casualty of war is truth. We have been told of more than a thousand Cruise missiles being discharged, thousands of air sorties organised. We have also been told that the operation is being carried out with surgical precision and that civilian casualties will be avoided. We were given the same assurances in the invasion of Panama, which was a tiny operation compared to this, yet they are still finding the mass graves of civilian victims.

War is always appalling; it is a particular abomination when it is a war that could have been avoided, and this is a war that could have been avoided. Iraq could have been forced out of Kuwait by the application of sanctions. When the Iraqis invaded, the world community responded in a generally responsible way by passing a series of resolutions at the United Nations imposing strict sanctions against Saddam Hussein's Government. The sanctions were working but everyone knew they would take time to bite fully.

Back at the end of November, shortly after Security Council Resolution 678 had been passed, a former Director of the CIA, Mr. James Schlesinger described as a hawk of the sixties and seventies, told the United States Senate Armed Forces Committee that economic sanctions should be given at least 18 months to work. "We do not lose the option of going to war if we fail to go to war by February or some other date", he said. Around the same time, Admiral William J. Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his predecesor, General David C. Jones, had urged President Bush to give the sanctions 12 to 18 months to work.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of people throughout the world would rather see the Iraqis forced out of Kuwait by peaceful means than at the cost of the sort of carnage that is now going on. Sanctions could have been strengthened. The net could have been tightened. Diplomatic relations were not even broken off. The Ambassadors of the countries which are now throwing every possible conventional weapon against Iraq were sitting in their embassies in Baghdad until the end of last week. Oil is crucial to the Iraqi economy and without outlets for it the entire infrastructure of the country was certain to crumble in time.

Ironically enough, this was one of the few occasions on which a United Nations decision to impose sanctions received virtual universal support. This was not enough for President Bush who wanted total and immediate victory over Iraq, and the John Wayne school of diplomacy was allowed to prevail when what was needed was a slow steady turning of the screw of sanctions.

Quite honestly, I am appalled at the motion the Government have brought before this House and I am ashamed that our country stood by and did so little to try to stop the world drifting to war. Our docile and subservient attitude was in stark contrast to the vigorous efforts of France and the Nordic countries to find a solution.

Although France is also a member of the European Community it did not find itself restricted by the requirements of European Political Co-operation. It continued to use its contact with the Arab world to explore every avenue for peace and pushed for an international conference on the Middle East as part of an overall settlement.

Similarly, the Nordic group of countries were to the fore in the search for peace and produced specific proposals for a UN peace-keeping force to supervise an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait to operate as a buffer zone between the two countries. It is to the credit of these countries that they tried. All we had was silence from the Taoiseach and pious sentiments from the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It is an indication of the contemptuous way in which the Government treat this House that the Taoiseach resisted all requests to have the Dáil recalled right up until yesterday when the war had already broken out. I urged the Taoiseach on several occasions before the Christmas recess to give a commitment to recall the Dáil if the threat of war in the Gulf seemed imminent. I wrote to the Taoiseach on 2 January requesting the recall of the Dáil and repeated the request to him on 11 January — he did not even bother to acknowledge my letters. As far back as 30 November, I outlined my belief that approval of the Dáil would be required for any proposal to provide facilities for any of the belligerent parties, as Article 28.3.1º of the Constitution states quite clearly that: "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann."

I am pleased that the Dáil has at last been recalled, but I am shocked that the Government intend to disregard the terms of the Constitution and the rights of this House, by apparently agreeing to provide landing and refuelling rights for US warplanes without first seeking Dáil approval.

This Government decision is a clear breach of our neutrality. It is against the wishes of the majority of our citizens and will endanger our people by involving us directly in a war in which countless people will die. The Government have created a very dangerous precedent by interpreting paragraph 3 of the Security Council Resolution 678 as requiring this country to oblige Ireland to provide facilities to support a war by member states of the United Nations. Does this mean, for instance, that the Government will also facilitate the transport of nuclear weapons to the Gulf, should the United States request them to do so? The Government's statement that the provision of such facilities will not constitute participation in the Gulf war is an insult to our intelligence and flies in the face of all logic.

As I understand it, the Government are claiming that because Ireland ratified the United Nations Charter when we joined in 1955, and because the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 678, the consent of the Dáil is not required for the provision of facilities for the US war machine. However, the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Single European Act case in April 1987 ruled quite specifically that the provisions of our Constitution must take precedence over international agreements, even where these have been ratified by the Oireachtas. In its judgment in that case the Supreme Court said:

one of the functions of the court is to uphold the Constitution. That includes restraining the Government from freeing themselves or purporting to free themselves from the restraints of the Constitution.

Apart from Article 28.3.1º, there is also Article 29.2. to be considered. This states that:

Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international abritration or judicial determination.

How can assisting the United States to shower Iraq with Cruise missiles and to destroy its cities with carpet-bombing be reconciled with adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes?

I want to put the Taoiseach on notice that the legal advice he has apparently obtained from the Attorney General on this matter does not coincide with advice we have received from a number of legal experts. Attorneys General have given unsound advice to governments before. The courts before now have had to be asked to step in and uphold the Constitution and defend the people from government attempts to flout their constitutional rights. In the light of the Government's attitude on this issue, it may be necessary to go to the courts once again.

The overnight developments are particularly worrying. It is now clear that not as much damage has been done to the Iraqi air force and missile system as had initially been claimed. The deplorable and unjustified Iraqi missile attack on Israel is a serious and unwarranted escalation which may bring the traditional over response from the Israelis. It is clear that those who believed that this war would be over by the weekend were very wide of the mark, and the chances are that this conflict will drag on and on and the casualties will be frightening. Even if - as seems likely - the United States and its allies eventually triumph, what will be the cost?

Apart from the loss of life involved, the economic, social and environmental consequences, not just for the Middle East but for the entire globe, including Ireland, will be horrific. The Taoiseach has spent several months talking to the trade unions about a new national understanding, and wage increases have been agreed after months of tough talking. The whole agreement could be rendered totally irrelevant if the Gulf conflict continues and especially if there is an interruption in the oil supply.

In addition, a US military victory over Iraq may remove Saddam Hussein from the stage, but it will not bring peace to the Middle East. It will lead to anger and resentment in many Arab countries, further alienate the Palestinians and result in further tension and conflict between the Arab world and the Western world. It will almost certainly lead to the long term presence of huge numbers of US troops in the region, although this may well be what President Bush and his Pentagon advisers want anyway.

What as a small neutral country should Ireland do? The first thing we should do as elected representatives of the Irish people is to reject the supine motion which the Government have placed before the House, which is a total and unconditional endorsement of the US view of the situation. One wonders indeed was it drafted by the Government or by Ambassador Moore at his meeting with the Taoiseach on Wednesday.

Our national policy should be directed not at supporting the position of either of the belligerent parties, but at seeking an end to the conflict. We should, once again, call on Iraq to unconditionally withdraw from Kuwait, and call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire by all of the parties involved.

We should work under the auspices of the United Nations for a peaceful resolution of the dispute, through non-violent measures, including, if necessary, the strengthening of sanctions. We should, in accordance with the commitment to peace, contained in Article 29 of our Constitution, join with other neutral and non-aligned countries in seeking an emergency session of the General Assembly of the United Nations to explore possible ways of ending the war without further loss of life. This is particularly important, as it should be stressed at all times that the Resolution on which the United States justifies its military action was passed only by the Security Council, which consists of just 15 of the 159 members of the United Nations, only 12 of whom voted for the Resolution. In the longer term there is a need to look again at the structure of the United Nations, and particularly the composition of the Security Council and the role of the five permanent members — three of whom are members of the NATO military alliance — who have been allowed to run the United Nations for far too long.

We do not, as Deputy Bruton and the Government seem to believe in some bright-eyed way, live in a pure, unsullied world where there are no vested interests manipulating the United Nations or other bodies. A new situation has been created in the world since the collapse of the Cold War. There is no doubt that the Security Council has been structured to meet the needs of the Cold War. There is an urgent need to review who can be or should be members of the Security Council. It is one thing to argue for a collective security system under the United Nations and another thing to accept that we can for ever and a day continue with the situation where a small number of powerful states can decide whether the rest of the world goes to war. That is not an acceptable position. It is an issue which needs to be debated at length by this House, in view of our size, in view of the fact that we have a policy of neutrality and in view of the fact that we need an international collective security system in order to survive.

We should look for an overall settlement of the problems of the Middle East. This must be done by the convening of an international conference. Saddam Hussein did not invade Iraq to assist the Palestinian people, but a solution to the Palestinian problem by the establishment of a homeland is central to any overall settlement of the Middle East problem. For far too long, Israel has been allowed to get away with being an habitual international criminal occupying territory captured by war in defiance of international law, killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories and regularly launching attacks on its neighbours. When the Western countries begin to demand from Israel the same standards they demand of others they will begin to win some respect in the Middle East.

We must make a decision that we will not allow our airports or airspace to be used by any of the belligerent parties in the war. We should not in any way facilitate the mass destruction going on in the Gulf. To do so is to render our neutrality worthless and to involve the people of this country in a needless war. It should be stressed that this is not an argument for turning our back on the world. It is an argument for opposing war and working for peace. Our Defence Forces have served bravely with the United Nations on peace-keeping missions and there is no reason we, as a neutral country, should not, for instance, provide medical aid or field hospitals for the casualties of this immoral, unjustified and unnecesary war.

The newspaper articles, the graphics, the panel discussions, the Government statements, even the television film cannot convey the suffering and misery, the death and destruction, that this war will bring to the unfortunate people of the Middle East. Human life and the avoidance of suffering, are far more important values than international prestige.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

Before I call the next speaker I want to remind Deputy De Rossa that he may not formally move his amendment at this time as Deputy Spring previously moved his amendment and there can only be one amendment before the House. Accordingly we must leave the moving of Deputy De Rossa's amendment until the end of the debate.

Proinsias De Rossa

Thank you.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O'Malley)

I just listened to Deputy De Rossa's diatribe against the United Nations and against law and justice in this world and it sickens me, as I am sure it must sicken the great majority of Members in this House. While it sickens me perhaps it does not altogether surprise me because he leads a party which found among its international allies in recent years such noted upholders of the international order as Kim II Sung and Ceausescu.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Malley

If somebody with that sort of approach to world affairs has nothing better to say he might at least avoid attacking the United Nations and those countries who were good enough to put forward large numbers of men and put them in great danger in order that collective security on this globe might be preserved.

I wish to state at the outset, my personal hope and prayer, and that of the Progressive Democrats, that this war, that has now commenced in the Gulf, will be short; successful in its objectives; and will cause the minimum of casualties on both sides.

Another important starting point, too, is to put the conflict in perspective. It is not a war between the United States and Iraq, as some including Deputy De Rossa, would have us believe, but rather it is being fought by a large multi-national alliance, acting in full conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and a multiplicity of resolutions passed by the Security Council, to which Ireland has fully subscribed.

The launching of Operation Desert Shield was no capricious act willfully visited on the Gulf area by any of the current belligerents on the Allied side. It arose wholly and exclusively out of the reprehensible invasion on 2 August last of Kuwait by an aggressive Iraqi war machine.

This invasion was born not out of a series of linkages with other regional issues, but rather out of an expansionist lust for power on the part of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Hussein challenged the international community to respond. It did so at the highest interNational level throughout the United Nations.

The United Nations was founded after World War II to promote international peace and security through a collective security process. In theory that process should have worked. In practice, it was stymied by the emergence of the Cold War in the fifties. How tragic it is that the high note of hope and optimism which characterised the opening of the nineties decade just one year ago, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the dawning of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, should have been overtaken so quickly by the prospect, and now the substance, of a new major war.

The passing of the Cold War ushered in the potential for a new world order. It is gratifying to note that throughout the recent very tense period concerning the Middle East, the Soviet Union has fully supported all of the UN resolutions, up to and including the statement made yesterday by President Mikhail Gorbachev reiterating full Soviet backing for the current UN endeavours in the Gulf.

This is the first modern test of the United Nations collective security concept free from the divisiveness of super power antagonisms. If the United Nations is to establish this central feature on which its Charter was founded, then we must support its resolutions, as we have done, and as we must continue to do.

The upholding of this important principle of international public policy, no less than the liberation of Kuwait itself, is a vital aspect of the Gulf crisis. This is not an issue on which we are, or ought to be, neutral. There can be no neutrality on the question of backing the United Nations and its resolutions, and in turn their implications, in the context of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Malley

Nor can there be any neutrality in respect of a regime which, contrary to all international law and practice, for months on end, deprived thousands of people, including many Irish citizens, of their rightful liberty in Iraq and Kuwait.

The Iraqi invasion of 2 August has also been attended by appalling crimes against the civilian population of Kuwait. Amnesty International, after exhaustive interviews and cross-checking, have produced a major report which constitutes a damning indictment of Iraqi tyranny and atrocities since it occupied Kuwait. We cannot be neutral on this matter either.

When the pretence of Saddam Hussein that he had attacked Kuwait in order to liberate Palestine was rejected by the United Nations, he then said prior to the outbreak of war that his first act of war would be to attack Israel. The objective of this was to widen the conflict in the Middle East and attempt to split the United Nations alliance. Last night, Iraq's unprovoked assault on Israel, added to the original aggression against Kuwait, is yet again something on which we cannot have a neutral position.

Israel is perfectly entitled to respond militarily for what happened last night. Nevertheless, I earnestly hope that Israel will not exercise this right because to do so would be to play into Hussein's hands. Happily, the damage caused last night was minimal and the allies will, hopefully, shortly destroy the missile bases that caused the damage.

Our adherence to the principles of the UN Charter therefore compels us, as has always been the case, to play a full and active role as a member of that organisation. No call has been made on Ireland under Resolution 678 to provide material assistance or support for the actions now being taken in the Gulf. None may be made. The considered view of the Progressive Democrats is that Ireland should not participate in the Gulf War in terms of troops, but that we must fully honour all of our obligations and commitments under the UN Charter.

Under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council may seek the provision of "facilities, including rights of passage necessary for purposes of ensuring peace and security". I believe therefore that any possible requests for transit or refuelling facilities at Shannon Airport by the allied forces on the way to or from the Gulf would logically come under the heading of Ireland's UN obligations. The promotion of the concept of collective security which, as I have said, is at the basis of the UN's international mandate, is something to which no small nation such as Ireland can, or ought to be, indifferent. Therefore, the view of the Government is that the allied forces are welcome to use Shannon Airport and indeed, if it were relevant, to use any other airport in the State that might be helpful to them also.

In my capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce, I would now like to address the possible consequences of the war on our economy. Of course, the exact economic consequences are impossible to predict, not least because its duration is so difficult to forecast. It is clear, however, that we have been experiencing adverse economic consequences of the Gulf crisis since August last in the price of our oil products, and in the loss of some market outlets for Irish beef.

More recently, the uncertainty that existed over the UN deadline, and the fear of the outbreak of hostilities, led to significant activity on the capital markets, with money rushing into the dollar, gold and, to a lesser extent, sterling; with the equity market suffering continuing losses, and with inflationary and recessionary fears being fuelled by dire predictions of the environmental and economic outcome of the hostilities.

Most of the activity in the capital markets in recent days was by its nature speculative and the uncertainty evident since August, which became acute in recent weeks would, if it continued act as a damper to productive investment and growth.

The difficulty in forecasting with any precision the impact on our economy of the Gulf War can be gauged, in part, from the fact that stock markets fell sharply on the announcement of the opening of hostilities after midnight on Wednesday, and rebounded with equal alacrity yesterday when it emerged that the initial massive air strike by the United Nations allied forces had apparently been carried out successfully. There has been renewed nervousness following last night's Iraqi attack on Israel. Indeed, those very developments indicate the degree to which events can be affected by the short term subjective expectations of stockholders and their ilk.

If a decisive result is achieved in the war, involving the liberation of Kuwait within a reasonable time-frame and avoiding knock-on political consequences elsewhere in the Gulf region, I believe positive economic consequences could ensue for Ireland with an end to the recent period of so much global uncertainty.

In coming to terms with the war, how does the national balance sheet lie? First, it is important to note that arising from our membership of the EC and the International Energy Agency; our relatively strong oil stocks position, which my party colleague, the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, will address in greater detail, and the fact that our dependence on oil has decreased greatly in recent years; all these factors mitigate the potential effects of a serious shortfall in Middle East oil supplies.

It is also important to remember that the fundamental economic barometers of the Irish economy are sound and are continuing to improve. Employment is increasing in real terms; our debt to GNP ratio is reducing; our currency is very stable within the EMS; our inflation is at the bottom of the EC league and we have enjoyed a long period of real growth. Furthermore, the partnership approach to economic development embodied in the Programme for National Recovery has resulted in a significant improvement in our competitive position relative to our main trading partners and the new Programme for Economic and Social Development should provide a framework for this partnership and for growth to continue.

I cite all these factors not to minimise or underestimate in any way the possible negative economic impact of the Gulf War on our small open economy but to emphasise nevertheless that we now have real economic strengths that will help us withstand the negative consequences that could flow. Such adverse consequences could be classified under further headings. Obviously some of the firms trading with the Middle East, including various consultancy interests and beef exporters will be hit but, while we could lose some of our export markets in that region, we must put this in context. Our total exports to all countries in the Gulf region in 1989 were small amounting to £244 million which was equivalent to just 1.7 per cent of our total exports. While it is difficult to speculate on precise outcomes, what could be far more damaging to Irish economic interests overall would be the financial impact on the United States of prosecuting the war and, in particular, the impact on their budgetary deficit.

There is no doubt that any tendency towards a further rise in their deficit will, on the basis of historic experience, cause the United States to increase its interest rates which will certainly impact adversely on the world economies. Rises in US interest rates would, inevitably, trigger general international interest rate rises from which we could not remain immune. That would increase the cost of Irish public indebtedness and hit our overall growth rate. Such developments in the United States would have similar knock-on effects on the economies of our major trading partners in the European Community and, if there is less growth in the United States, then Ireland will have less trade and thereby less employment.

Another possible consequence, about which I can really do little more than speculate at the moment, is what might happen in respect of the renewed ministerial Uruguay Round of the GATT if these hostilities are still in place by the middle of February. I am not sure how some of the major participants will look on the Uruguay Round at that stage. If it is found necessary to postpone it, it may well give rise to quite serious problems.

The possible adverse economic consequences of this war on Ireland are as nothing compared to the potential cost in human life in the Middle East itself. I deeply regret that we find ourselves in this tragic situation. It has been forced on the international community as a result of Iraqi intransigence in the face of all pleas for peace, up to and including the ill-fated mission of Javier Perez de Cuellar, the UN Secretary General, who went to Baghdad as recently as last weekend, where he was utterly humiliated in public by the Iraqi dictator, Hussein.

It is appalling that the international community was forced, against its own wishes if you like, beyond the brink of peace into war and we must all fervently hope and pray that the war can be brought to a swift conclusion.

Apart from the military objectives of the allied forces acting under their UN mandate to win the war, it is important that we in Ireland should do everything in our power, through our involvement in the European Community and the United Nations - and any other relevant forum which might present itself - to secure and ensure the winning of a peace which will be just and comprehensive and which will take into account the overall needs of the troubled Middle Eastern region.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The motion presented to the Dáil by the Taoiseach is quite anodyne and no one could reasonably oppose its bland terms and pious aspirations. At least the recall of the Dáil and the motion tabled at this late stage after the outbreak of hostilities gives the elected representatives of this country the same opportunity accorded to parliamentarians world-wide to debate the Gulf crisis.

It is perhaps significant that the terms of the resolution drafted by the Government refer to "this critical time". If the Government accept that times are critical why did they delay so long in having this debate? Perhaps, more importantly, why do they merely "note" the request of the Security Council to provide appropriate support for UN authorised action in the Gulf? We are merely asked to express the earnest hope that all concerned will do everything open to them to ensure that military action will be of short duration and that the loss of human life and destruction will be kept to a minimum.

We are given no indication whatever as to what we, of our own volition, are prepared to do to achieve this laudable objective or to comply with the UN request for support. In blunt terms we have a choice; we can once again shelter behind the fig leaf of neutrality and murmur sweet nothings about our commitment to peace or we can actively, fully and honourably discharge our obligations as a mature member of the international community and of the United Nations. The fig leaf of neutrality is stripped from us leaving us naked and exposed when we observe the actions of neutral Sweden in providing a field hospital unit for troops wounded in the Gulf.

I do not believe that we have the right — nor can we afford the luxury — of standing back as passive observers of history. We have been a full member of the United Nations for 35 years and, as such, we must fully shoulder the obligations of membership. Possible grudging acquiscence to requests to sell aviation fuel at Shannon to a fellow member of the United Nations is not the kind of open, generous response we should be making to the UN request. Shannon is not a major issue in international terms. It is a convenience which can be overflown if necessary.

What are the overall facts in international terms? Twenty-eight fellow members of the United Nations have committed forces to the Gulf to ensure that the UN writ will run there. I am not saying that we should — or indeed could — follow their example but our reaction to the UN request should be positive, open and generous. It should involve us freely and voluntarily spelling out in practical terms our response to that request, whether it involves airports or other facilities or indeed following Sweden's example in providing a non-combatant humanitarian medical assistance unit in the Gulf.

The leader of Fine Gael has asked the Government to seek out practical, non-combatant ways as a response to the United Nations' request. There is a strong case for dispatching a medical team to the Gulf as an expression of symbolic solidarity and as a humanitarian measure. There has been discussion regarding our mandatory obligations under the Charter. Irrespective of arguments about the mandatory effects of the Charter and the resolutions, we have a moral obligation to make a contribution. Our policy of neutrality was in place when we accepted the rights and undertook the duties, responsibilities and obligations of UN membership in 1956. Such a policy does not provide any excuse for adopting a "do nothing" approach or attitude when asked for help in ensuring that UN resolutions are implemented. It is time that hoary old chestnut was finally put to rest and, if nothing else, the response of neutral Sweden clearly shows the fraud involved in accepting that recipe to do nothing.

Even more fraudulent is the attitude of those who want to sit in splendid isolation and moralise from a distance. Isolationism in an inter-dependent world is a non-starter. We must play our part in the maintenance of international law and in upholding the UN Charter. I fundamentally disagree with those who play the part of moral theorists in international politics but who are not prepared to accept the responsibility of supporting, with fellow UN members, the implications of their theories. That is the soft option, pandering to the instincts of all of us who long for a peaceful world where bullies, dictators and tyrants would, in response to our wishes, gracefully depart the scene on request. However, that is not the real world and, unfortunately, Utopia is not around the corner.

To some degree, a domestic parallel is our support for law and order in our own country. Here the rule of law survives because of consensus support not just for the system of laws but for the enforcement procedures operated by the Garda and security forces. The 10,000 largely unarmed gardaí on their own could not enforce the rule of law in a country with a population of 3.5 million people without the agreement and active support of the vast majority of our people. Similarly, in international terms, there has to be agreement on the rule of international law and the active support of all in enforcing that law. Without the means of enforcement, the rule of law breaks down and becomes more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Very simply, exhortations without enforcement procedures and an absolute willingness to support these procedures will very often have the same result as those derived from whistling against the wind.

The original founders of the United Nations, drawing on the sad experience of the League of Nations in the thirties, were well aware of the need for such enforcement procedures and provided for same in the Charter. We were also well aware of the enforcement terms of the Charter when we joined and it is a cop-out now to deny our commitment to the Charter and the resolutions passed by the United Nations. There is a need to stand up to dictators to uphold the United Nations Charter and maintain respect for the rule of international law. The credibility of the United Nations is at stake. Our credibility will also be at stake if we either refuse to actively support the United Nations resolutions on the Gulf and, even more so, if we try on spurious grounds to undermine the United Nations by refusing reasonable requests for assistance to those engaged in enforcing those resolutions.

These spurious claims will come from those who will say that this is not a just war. In so far as any war is just, surely this one qualifies. On the one hand we have Saddam Hussein, trapped on the treadmill of tyranny in Iraq, whose attempt to turn himself into the colossus of the Gulf involves the annexation of an adjoining defenceless small state like our own. He also made it clear that this was but a tasty morsel before he took over Saudi Arabia as the main course.

With the fourth largest army in the world under his ruthless command, he provides a role model for the evil ruler whose elimination would be the cause of great rejoicing in many countries, particularly his own. Ranged against him is an international alliance of 28 countries seeking to enforce the resolutions of a body representing over 160 countries of the world. No force in history has ever had such legitimate authority.

Some would argue that sanctions should have been given more time and that, therefore, force is unnecessary. Here we must distinguish between legitimate differing viewpoints and the authority of the United Nations to demand compliance with Resolution 660 and, as stated in Resolution 678 of 29 November, "to allow Iraq one final opportunity as a pause of goodwill to do so" when authorising member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its decisions. Very simply, personal opinions may vary but it is the United Nations Security Council which decides, on the basis of full information, intelligence reports unavailable to individuals and, most certainly, unaffected by irrelevant pleadings of those who would tout neutrality as a reason for failing to distinguish between right and wrong.

It is my view that Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his cruelty. I believe furthermore that he himself would not allow the sufferings of his people as a result of sanctions to interfere with his ambitious plans. He was the man who committed them to the eight year folly of a war with Iran which cost 500,000 Iraq lives. He was also the man who used gas on his own Kurdish population and who, according to an Islamic leader who met him last week, is prepared to lose half his army in the Gulf War rather than to comply with the United Nations resolutions. Clearly, he is a total tyrant willing to fight to the last drop of everybody else's blood, and especially that of the unfortunate Iraqi people under his despotic control. To paraphrase O'Casey, it is not the gunman who is dying for Iraq, it is Iraq which is dying for the gunman. Can it be logically suggested that until either it suits his own purposes or he himself is forced to submit, that he would move one inch out of Kuwait because of the hunger and suffering of his own people? I think not.

Irrespective of the merits of the argument, the United Nations Security Council has decided. Whether we agree or not with the judgment of the United Nations, those of us who subscribe to its Charter are bound by that decision. To use another domestic analogy, every decision of the Four Courts does not win universal approval but as a people who believe in the rule of law and the judicial system we accept the result.

I believe the wish of the huge majority of the people of Ireland is that we fully support the rule of international law and that we fully support the United Nations authorised action in the Gulf. Dáil Éireann is the place to have that issue fully debated. In many ways it was a disgrace that hostilities were underway before this House had the opportunity to discuss the issue. This was partly due to the fact that the Dáil has been out of session since before Christmas. It is worth mentioning in this regard that it has had only 25 sitting days in the last six months.

We are virtually unique among western democracies in that the Taoiseach refuses to agree to the establishment of a foreign affairs committee. Many of the decisions formerly taken by the Dáil are now largely influenced by EC directives where a democratic deficit also exists but that is a debate for another day. Again, agreements with the social partners and implementd by the Executive without reference to the Dáil to some degree undermine the constitutional sovereignty of Parliament. It is quite unacceptable that Opposition efforts to recall the Dáil to debate this most serious crisis in international affairs for decades should have been frustrated by the Government until after the outbreak of the war.

The Government have argued that Article 28.3 of the Constitution is not directly applicable to enable us to discharge our duties under the United Nations Charter and resolutions. That depends, of course, on the manner in which the Government intend to respond to the United Nations request for support. When President Bush held discussion initially with Congressional leaders, the White House argument was that the President did not need Congressional approval for the use of force and could proceed on the basis of his constitutional position as Commander-in-Chief of the forces. Eventually, he agreed and got the necessary Congressional approval.

The Taoiseach's argument appears to be that the response of this country to the United Nations requests will be so limited and negative that Article 28.3 of our Constitution does not apply. That approach is wrong, not because of constitutional semantics but because of the limited and negative nature of the response proposed. We should not have been arguing the merits or demerits in a vacuum, the Dáil should either have been in session just like every other parliament in western Europe or should have been recalled so that the Government could outline the nature of their proposed response and obtain the approval of the House as they are constitutionally required to do. Indeed, we had a series of winks and nods, reports to the media on the various failed diplomatic initiatives, predictions on the likely effects on Saddam Hussein of such initiatives and a half-hearted indication that special requests for facilities at Shannon would be favourably considered, coupled immediately with the ritual genuflection to our policy of neutrality with comforting reassurances that it would not be affected.

This is not the action of a Government who either fully believe in the democratic process or who are committed to discharging our obligations as a member of the United Nations. It is now very clear that noise about neutrality is not a relevant issue. It did not affect our decision to join the United Nations or countless decisions to despatch peace-keeping forces to the Congo, Cyprus, Lebanon and many other places and it does not affect the decisions of countries like Sweden to despatch a field hospital unit to the Gulf. Why then do we continue with the charade that we are prevented from discharging either our mandatory commitments or moral obligations as a member of the United Nations because of our policy of military neutrality?

I suggest a somewhat different approach and alternative prescription to the largely pious platitudes we are debating here today. My approach takes full account of our policy of neutrality but, more importantly, it takes full account of our obligations as a member of the United Nations and as a country committed to upholding international order. I want to see Ireland standing four square behind the United Nations in its efforts to restore international peace and security and stability in the Gulf area. This involves the continuation of the diplomatic and political effort to find a peaceful solution within the terms of the United Nations resolutions. Diplomacy should not stop just because war has broken out. In many ways it is more important now given that hostilities are underway.

I do not have pretentions about the impact of Ireland's role as a small country. Neither do I under-estimate the effect of our voice, particularly if we have the moral authority from observing and being seen to observe the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter and resolutions. We should make it clear that we have no time for vulgar expressions of anti-American sentiment and if our airports and other facilities here are in any way useful and helpful we should offer them without reservation. This is a UN authorised action designed to enforce the will of the international community. It is not an America v. Iraq war. We have long had friendly links with the US. At times I have disagreed with their approach to international affairs and have said so. In this instance military might combines with moral right on the side of the Americans and all the other members of the multinational force in the Gulf.

We should be open and generous in our response to the UN's request to provide appropriate support. We should make it clear to the Secretary General of the UN that this is our attitude and we should explore practical options and ways in which to give non-combatant expression to this request in the UN resolution. We should make it clear to our EC partners that we are prepared to work with them wholeheartedly in fashioning a cohesive Community response to this crisis. Only if we adopt this approach can we consider ourselves to be discharging our obligations of UN membership and our commitment to the international rule of law.

The latest aggression of Saddam Hussein in his unprovoked attack on Israel confirms entirely the point I have been making. This is the man who will not respond to the exhortations of the entire international community. This is the man who will not respond to the resolutions of the UN. This is the man who has engaged in the most outrageous rape and pillage of the defenceless neighbouring country of Kuwait, the man who is directly responsible for the loss of life now taking place in the Middle East. As a direct result of his actions this war is taking place. We must never forget that. At the same time we must never forget our duties and responsibilities as members of the international community, and our duties and responsibilities in upholding the Charter of the UN and supporting wholeheartedly its resolutions.

Mr. Roche

The crisis we are discussing today did not begin this week with the air strikes on military targets in Iraq and in occupied Kuwait. Rather it began on 2 August when Saddam Hussein made history by ordering the army of Iraq into the neighbouring country of Kuwait. That is when the war began and, let us not forget, that is also when the killing began. The invasion of Kuwait was historic not just in the sense that it occurred but in that it meant that for the very first time since the foundation of the UN one member state attempted to usurp the entire territory of another member state.

The motion from the Government notes with deep regret the invasion of Kuwait. It declares fully our support for the UN and in particular for Resolution 678 and its companion resolutions. It expresses the desire that any military action be limited and it expresses our strong support for diplomatic efforts to end this dreadful and bloody conflict and to restore the independence and integrity of Kuwait. I am mystified as to how any Irish person could do anything but endorse the sentiments of this resolution. To do otherwise, as has been suggested most notably by The Workers' Party, would mean we are endorsing aggression. It would mean we are willing to ignore the UN Charter and that we are prepared to cast the nations who seek in this instance to uphold UN resolutions, a duty which applies to all member nations, in the same light as the aggressor. Irish people who are genuinely interested in peace would see this for what it is, both hypocritical and perverse.

Saddam Hussein has long put himself outside the pale of political and international respectability. He illustrated his ruthless nature in his rise to power by dispatching those who stood in his way. Those who were lucky fled into exile and those who were not perished. Again, he showed his nature in the bloody and futile Iran-Iraq war. During that war his total disregard for human life was well illustrated by his preparedness to use time and again chemical and nerve weapons first of all on the Iranians, a war crime which was largely ignored by the West because at that time Khomeini was cast in the role of a demon, and then on the Kurdish minority who share with him common religion and citizenship.

Hussein's use of foreign nationals, including Irish men and Irish women, who went to serve the Iraqi people in a peaceful and humanitarian way, as pawns in his power game after the 2 August invasion again speaks volumes about the nature of this dictator. His invasion of Kuwait and the bloody tyranny he unleashed were again indicative of the mentality of the man and of his unwillingness to apply any acceptable standards of international behaviour.

If we need proof that the whole world was being defied by a tyrant it came last night when Hussein ordered a missile attack on Israel, not because Israel was directly involved in this war but because by involving Israel he could broaden the theatre of battle and extend and prolong the slaughter. It was the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister who commented upon the chilling reverberation of history, a dictator again willing to use chemical and other horrific weapons against the Jewish people. In his action against Israel the dictator illustrates something else, that he is willing again to use the people of a nation, Israel, whether they are Jewish, Muslim or Christian, as pawns in his power game. Like the people of Kuwait, of Iran and of Iraq itself, they are all to be regarded as dispensable towards this man's ambition.

It is necessary to make these points because they illustrate how perverse the action proposed by The Workers' Party is in that it seeks to put those who are operating in accordance with UN Resolution 678, and its companion resolutions, on a plane with Saddam Hussein. I do not think this view of the actions of those people and nations who are involved in opposing Hussein is shared by the Irish people.

The performance of The Workers' Party in recent days has been particularly repugnant, hypocritical and totally at variance with most of the principles they have espoused over the years. While The Workers' Party have sought to distance themselves from former friends and sponsors, the brutal and corrupt communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe, a vicious and vehement anti-Americanism remains at the core of their attitude towards foreign policy. As their general secretary put it in an article for the Moscow periodical, International Affairs, in April 1987, “The enemy today is Anglo-American imperialism”. Everybody else, including the Soviet Union and neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland who voted for the Security Council Resolutions, and Austria who granted American military planes heading for the Gulf landing rights in Vienna, see the issue as clearcut aggression against a small state, but The Workers' Party insist on seeing it in crude, anti-American terms as if it was the Americans who were mainly at fault.

I share the sentiment that American foreign policy is very frequently wrongheaded. I have often expressed the view that fairly frequently they get it wrong, but I do not believe on this occasion that they have done so. The Workers' Party ignore the fact that the American contribution to democracy and the prosperity of workers in Ireland and throughout the world has been second to none. I trust the fact that Iraq is a single party socialist State has nothing to do with their partiality in this matter. The Workers' Party have had to stand their own principles — if they can be so called — on their head. The Worker's Party are by no means pacifists. Their former leader, Deputy Mac Giolla said in a Hot Press interview a few years ago, and I quote:

I would not see myself as a pacifist at all. If somebody annoyed me I'd want to hit him back. If people have to stand up for themselves and for their rights, and that can often require a certain amount of force as we see in the situation in Nicaragua for example, yes, there are situations where you have to fight back.

The Workers' Party have often expressed their support for the liberation struggles of the Palestinians — a struggle which I too support — the struggles of the ANC and of the Sandinistas. Why are the Kuwaitis and those helping them not allowed to try every method after diplomacy has been exhausted? Is it because the Kuwaitis do not espouse an ideology shared by The Workers' Party? The position of The Workers' Party today also is in flagrant breach of their election manifesto of July 1989 — The Socialist Alternative — which states on page 12:

The Irish Government should, through use of its influence in the United Nations, through the establishment of diplomatic relations and other suitable means, defend the rights of peoples in other countries to build a better future without outside interference or attack.

Are the Irish Government not doing exactly that in this resolution, promoting the rights of a small nation — Kuwait — by supporting the United Nations? Surely the attitude of The Workers' Party, in attacking United Nations solidarity, is totally indefensible by reference to their own policies? We have often listened in this House to Deputy De Rossa preach the merits of collective security. At column 671, Volume 398 of the Official Report of 3 May 1990 Deputy De Rossa had this to say:

Ireland should use its neutral status to work towards the creation of a common European home and the concept of a "security community" where there would be no expectation or toleration for the use of military force between states on the Continent.

In the concept of Pan-European security it is clear that the notion that provoked aggression and the occupation of one member state by another would be outside the CSCE proposals. It is clear also from the relevant CSCE document that, if diplomacy fails, resolution of the conflict must necessarily be wrought by force. How can the model which The Workers' Party wish to see implemented in Europe not be equally valid in the Middle East?

I might draw Deputy De Rossa's attention to a well presented article by Fintan O'Toole in The Irish Times of 20 September last in which he said that if we wanted to become credible on neutrality we had to endorse, and without ambivalence, the United Nations principles of collective security with all the commitments that that implies. One of the pillars of Irish foreign policy and neutrality has been the principle of support for collective security. Deputy De Rossa has advanced the ridiculous argument in recent days that it would be all right to support the United Nations in the days of the Cold War when it was impotent but that it would be quite wrong to support it when it has the first chance in 40 years to implement the concept of collective security.

We cannot accept the paranoid world view of The Workers' Party that the entire international community, including the Soviet Union, France, Syria, India, much of the developing world and the neutral nations of Europe are all stooges and puppets of the United States. The Workers' Party should be ashamed of their stance and withdraw their amendment, making the Government motion the unanimous view of this House, supporting the Security Council of the United Nations, seeking an early end to the present conflict on the basis of restoring fully the freedom of Kuwait.

I should like to refer to another proposition put forward in recent days by Deputy De Rossa, that somehow or other we should be instrumental in convening a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The first point I would make is that the General Assembly is actually in suspended session at present. The second and more relevant point is that the United Nations Charter itself specifically prohibits the action Deputy De Rossa suggests this Government should undertake, in that it clearly makes the point that, when the Security Council are handling a specific issue, unless the Security council so request, the General Assembly cannot become involved.

Proinsias De Rossa

Deputy Roche should read it again.

Mr. Roche

I have read is several times. I should like to comment briefly on Deputy Spring's contribution which was far below his normal high standard and compared very poorly, in its understanding of international relations, with the excerpts quoted from his predecessor, Deputy William Norton by Deputy John Bruton earlier this morning. I have noted the increasing tendency in Deputy Spring's approach to issues to adopt a lawyer's narrow interpretation instead of the broader angle of a politician informed by a lawyer's training. Very often the legal arguments are thin, such as the suggestion that granting landing rights at Shannon Airport to military planes involved in attacks authorised by the United Nations constitutes participation in war. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and other speakers have already made the point clearly that that is patent nonsense. I do not wish to dwell on the constitutional issue which was dealt with extensively by the Taoiseach this morning. But I do feel it was a great pity Deputy Spring chose to take the route he did.

Every diplomatic and peaceful method to end the Iraqi aggression has been used over recent months; every attempt by former friends of Iraq, such as France and the Soviet Union, to find a peaceful solution was rebuffed by the Baghdad regime. There was no assurance that sanctions would have achieved their desired effect or that they could have been maintained indefinitely. Both France and the Soviet Union have clearly stated that Iraq is the responsible party for the outbreak of war. We should not be distracted by weasel words from the remnants of the Left into forgetting who is at fault on this issue. Personally I would have wished that sanctions had been given greater time. I am not sure what were the compelling arguments against that view but, as Deputy Jim O'Keeffe said, that is not the issue now — war is enjoined. What we are discussing here is our response to this tragic, disastrous state of affairs and our response to our United Nations obligations. In this matter the United Nations have spoken. We should act completely in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations. The only course of action available to us — if we refuse to do that — is to withdraw from the United Nations. That is not a course of action which any Member of this House believes would be correct.

The Government motion before the House is one which should commend itself to all Members and have the support of all sides of the House.

Mr. Barry

I should like to share my time, with the agreement of the House, with Deputy Taylor-Quinn.

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. Barrett)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Barry

Can anybody be in any doubt where Ireland stands when a big, powerful country such as Iraq invades and purports to annex a small, weaker neighbour such as Kuwait? We should not even be debating that issue in this House. There can be no doubt where this small country stands in that argument. We — and I certainly — believe the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August last was an act of aggression and should have been condemned as such by all members of the EC immediately without any qualification or side-stepping. Yet it took until the end of August last before this Government, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs could be made to refer to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq as an act of aggression. Up to then they had been avoiding the issue, hiding in a cowardly manner behind such phrases as: the official Government stance was reflected in the European Community wording. That is not conduct worthy of this Government. Of all the countries in Europe there should have been no doubt where Ireland stood in this matter.

While it might be an exaggeration to say that it was possible for Iraq to take some consolation from the mixed messages being sent by the Irish Government, there is no doubt that because other countries in the world did not come out firmly and oppose Iraq from the very beginning, President Saddam Hussein could reach some sort of belief that he would be allowed remain in Kuwait if he stuck it out sufficiently long and, of course, achieve his objective in becoming the leader of the Arab world. There should never have been any indication given to the President of Iraq that any solution to his border dispute with Kuwait could be linked with the Palestinian question. It is fair to say that the whole world left that question unaddressed for far too long. There should not have been any indication that any problems in the Middle East would be addressed before Saddam Hussein left Kuwait and handed it back to the people of Kuwait.

This is the second issue on which the Government have failed to give leadership. The other is in the European Community where Inter-Governmental Conferences are taking place. The Irish people or the House do not know the position of the Irish Government, or of proposals if any they have put forward at those conferences. That is not the way a democracy should work and it does not augur well for the future. It has been too frequently the case that the Fianna Fáil Party who have men of intelligence, the support of the people and are elected to govern, have not shown any leadership here, in Europe, at the Inter-Governmental Conferences, and, again, last August in the case of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

It was said here earlier, and in the media generally, that this war is about oil. That is correct. It started because of the Kuwaiti decision last spring, despite an OPEC agreement, to cut the price they were charging for oil. The Iraqi Government did not want that because of the huge debts incurred through the Iran/Iraq war. It started also because Iraq claimed that an oilwell which was on both sides of the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border was being drained by the Kuwaitis for their own advantage. Added to that, was the charge by Iraq that during the war with Iran, Kuwait moved the border between the two countries by some 20 or 30 miles.

They are all serious issues which need to be addressed, but they are not issues that should be resolved by violence. If there is a complaint about Kuwait's loyalty to the OPEC countries, then there is machinery within OPEC to resolve that. If there is a dispute as to where the border lies between Kuwait and Iraq, then the UN can resolve that. To try to solve that problem by aggression flies in the face of everything for which the UN was established and to which we in this House collectively and unanimously subscribe.

There can be no resolution of disputes whether in the North of Ireland, the Middle East or Central America, by violence. We must always adhere to that. When an aggressive stance is adopted by one country against another we must be clearly on the side of the country which is the victim of that aggression, even though friends of ours may be the aggressor. We have had good relations with Iraq. We have maintained diplomatic relations with Iraq and a presence in Baghdad right through the Iran/Iraq war. They are good and valued customers of this country in many regards. However, we would eventually undermine democracy if we allowed the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait go, without our support for the United Nations to ensure that Iraq withdraws from Kuwait.

It has been said in the last few months, and repeated here today, that sanctions should have been given more time. Some commentators have drawn a comparison between sanctions against South Africa and those against Iraq. There is no comparison between the situation in South Africa and that in the Middle East.

Sanctions have been in place now for five and a half months. Can anybody who makes that claim say that sanctions would work in six months or 12 months? Does any Member, or anybody outside the House, believe that President Saddam Hussein, who treated the Secretary General of the UN with such discourtesy in the last ten days, who spurned the French initiative which contained so many of the things he wished for, including a linking with the Palestinian question, with such contempt, would be moved by another six months of sanctions, or that he would have changed his position in six months time? It is quite clear that the Iraqi authorities intended and intend, unless they are made move out of Kuwait, to remain there and ensure that Kuwait is, to qoute themselves, the 19th province of Iraq for all time.

The Saudi Arabian Government certainly did not believe that sanctions would work and that is why they sought the assistance of the UN. They believed that Saddam Hussein wished, as he said, to remove the infidel from the holy cities and be the leader of the Arab world. If the UN had not acted, and if the United States had not taken a leading role in the action, we would surely have been on the brink of a major war in the Middle East and perhaps beyond.

I strongly support the UN in this and because we are a member of the UN, I support what the Government are doing. I only wish they had given the leadership to the Irish people long before now in that regard. If our support requires the refuelling of American planes on their way to the Middle East we should facilitate that.

I am disturbed sometimes at the anti-Americanism that is displayed by some Members, and those outside, taking into account the contribution America has made to this Continent, apart from its special ties to this country, since the last world war. When America are obviously acting in the interests of the UN and the free world, it is treacherous not to support them.

One of the notable things about the last few days has been the language used by the Prime Minister of Britain and the President of the US. It is such a relief and so much better than that used by either of their predecessors in similar circumstances in the past.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Madeleine Taylor-Quinn is sharing the time allotted to Deputy Peter Barry.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I would request the Taoiseach to appoint a Minister for Defence today so that we will have a Minister for Defence in charge of Defence matters.

Acting Chairman

That does not arise during this debate.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I am just mentioning it. We should have a Minister for Defence between now and when the Dáil returns on 30 January.

This war has raised two fundamental questions, one relating to our neutrality and the other to the constitutionality of the Government allowing access to Shannon for personnel and aircraft on their way to the Gulf.

In relation to neutrality it is grossly misleading to suggest that our neutrality is in question if we allow the American planes to go through Shannon. We will not be engaging in a military alliance but will be supporting the UN of which we are members. Fine Gael fully support the UN collective security position. It is the only way we, and all small nations, can survive. It is vital to our national interests to take that direction.

It is unfortunate that the Government have dilly-dallied to date and have allowed the situation to develop where people have been misled. The Government should have come out weeks ago and stated clearly their position on the action being taken. This morning, the Taoiseach attempted to clarify the position to this House. He was followed by the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy O'Malley, who also did not fully clarify the situation. In fact he misquoted some articles of the United Nations Charter. We must be very clear that the relevant article of the United Nations Charter is not the often quoted Article 43 and that Resolution 660 of 1990 and Resolution 668 of 1991 have been made under Article 51. Article 51 which I will quote here today states specifically:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

No action has been taken under Article 43 and in fact, it is Article 49 which states:

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

That is relevant. It is unfortunate that the Government have failed to clarify the matter for the people of Ireland and by not doing so they have allowed the Labour Party to attempt to mislead the Irish people. It is interesting that in tabling their amendment the Labour Party have not referred to Article 49, which completely demolishes their false thesis.

On the question of constitutionality it is unfortunate that the Government have not sought the agreement of this House for the action they are taking. I believe there is an inherent danger in not clearly seeking the permission of this House for their action. We need only refer to the outcome of the Crotty Case on the constitutionality of the Single European Act in 1987. Many people were surprised at the Supreme Courts decision in that case which was different from what had been expected. If the Supreme Court were capable of making that decision at that time is there not a danger that a similar decision could be made if what we are doing today is challenged? That would be very unfortunate for this House. The Government have failed to take the appropriate action in putting this motion before us.

I view The Workers' Party amendment with some amusement, in particular paragraph 6 which calls on the Dáil to instruct the Government, in accordance with the principles of Article 29 of the Constitution... "to join with other neutral and non-aligned countries". I had hoped that The Workers' Party would have taken the opportunity today of explaining to this House what are non-aligned countries. I believe it was a mistake for them to use the term "non-aligned countries". It is a grave distortion of the term because this terminology is being used to cover all countries which have very strong Left wing tendencies and a very strong anti-American attitude. We know that the non-aligned countries have been led in the past by Cuba, and that Romania has been part of that grouping. Yet we are being asked to align ourselves with these countries. That is extremely unfortunate and needless to say we could not support something like that. The Government should be much more clear and decisive in their role. I must criticise them in that respect.

With regard to the broader issue of sanctions I believe, as Deputy John Bruton said this morning, that this Government can make a contribution over and above any type of military contribution. We do not consider that we should make any contribution of a military nature or that it would be possible for us to do so. We believe that as a member of the EC and of the United Nations there are areas where we can act effectively and make positive proposals to ensure that the world order and law continue to exist. The Government should be questioning seriously at EC and UN level the effectiveness of the monitoring of the United Nations sanctions. They should ask why the United Nations and the EC were not monitoring sanctions closely and why it was left to the Americans to monitor them. We know that the American Congressional Committee were receiving feedback that the sanctions were working quite effectively. We should have questioned also the impact of sanctions on the military, how effective they were.

The attack on Israel by the Iraqis must be condemned out of hand and any assistance that we can give to ensure that mayhem such as existed during World War II in 1945 must be given. We as a nation are morally and politically obliged to assist in ensuring that this does not happen and for that reason we support the motion.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Burke)

I would like to address the House on the manner in which the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf impinges on my area of responsibility as Minister for Justice. At the outset I would like to reassure Deputies that all steps considered necessary by the Garda Síochána to preserve the internal security of the State have been taken. Immediately after the invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi forces in August of last year, I held consultations with senior officials of my Department and with the Garda Authorities on the internal security implications for this country of that invasion. Preliminary plans were drawn up in the short term and arrangements for the medium term study of the implications of any widening of the conflict in the Gulf were set in motion.

Throughout the past five months we have watched carefully the developments in the United Nations and have adopted our forward planning accordingly. We have also consulted with our partners in the European Community through the Trevi organisation, through police channels and other appropriate channels in Europe on the need for concerted efforts among the Twelve member states to cope with any perceived threat of terrorism against European targets. I am happy to inform the House that the outcome of the forward planning has been put into effect. We are and have been for some time prepared for the situation that has now arisen and all our plans and preparations to deal with the problems that may arise are already in place. We are confident that we have in place, as a result of the fruits of our earlier labours, all feasible and necessary measures to enable us to deal with any situation that can be expected to develop. That is not, of course, to say that having put in train the necessary security arrangements we are complacent about the situation or have a relaxed attitude to it. Continued vigilance is one of the prices for effective security. Yesterday morning I reviewed all necessary security precautions with the Garda Commissioner and the relevant authorities and I am satisfied, in so far as anyone can be satisfied in the security context, of the sufficiency of the arrangements. In particular, security arrangements at our airports have been increased significantly. Deputies will be aware of some of the new security arrangements at airports from yesterday's radio and TV coverage of the increased security profile. However, other less visible steps have also been taken involving increased deployment of gardaí, Defence Forces and Aer Rianta personnel. It is a sad fact of history that hostilities in the Middle East tend to provoke terrorist attacks against airline traffic, and airports in Western Europe. To ignore such recent history would be foolish in the extreme.

The Garda authorities have, accordingly, drawn up strategic plans for the protection of our airports and for the aircraft using them. I do not anticipate that this House would have any expectations that I would reveal details of any security measures drawn up to protect our airports or our passengers. To reveal such details could conceivably militate against their effectiveness and that is not what the House would want. Suffice then to conclude on this topic by reiterating that all the recommendations of the Garda Commissioner in this respect have been put into effect. Quite apart from airports which, as I have mentioned, have been the particular targets of Middle Eastern terrorism in the past, there are other key installations and public utilities which prudence demands should receive particular attention at times of hostilities overseas. A list of such facilities has been prepared and the deployment of necessary resources — Garda and Army — to protect them has been arranged. Again, as in the situation in relation to the airports, it would be inappropriate for me to go into the details of such deployments as they could conceivably militate against the effectiveness of such measure.

As in the past the arrangements will frequently involve patrol and protection of utilities by the Gárda Síochána and Defence Forces. Again, I do not want to go into too much detail but the House will no doubt be fully aware and appreciate of both forces and the role they have played in the past and will continue to play in the future in the protection of society and its utilities at times of hostilities overseas.

Indeed, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the role and contributions of the Garda Commissioner of the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and of the heads of security in Aer Rianta who, together with their forces and staff, are doing such an excellent job. I thank them all in respect of the preparation of their plans, and of the deployment of their respective resources during the emergency situations in which we find ourselves from time to time. I am sure Deputies on all sides of the House will join me in this tribute to those people.

Lest there be any anxiety in the House that the commitment by the Garda and the Defence Forces towards the protection of our airports and other utilities during the hostilities in the Gulf might in any way reduce our security commitments along the Border. I take this opportunity to reassure the House that this will not be the case. The additional commitments I have mentioned, together with some others I will mention shortly, will not affect our level of commitment against those who would seek the achievement of political goals on this island through violence. There can be no question of anyone here availing of the opportunity of international military conflict abroad to subvert the democratic and constitutional institutions of this State. Any such activity will not be tolerated no matter from which source it comes.

At times of war — and that is what is happening in the Gulf even as we speak — there is a particular responsibility on host nations to give special attention and protection to the diplomatic representatives and the embassies of those nations involved in the conflict. We have, of course, due recognition of our responsibility in this regard. I can assure the House that all the relevant diplomatic personnel and embassies are receiving the required level of security protection and that the Garda have been in touch with the various embassies and are constantly monitoring the situation. I want also to assure the House that the Garda have the necessary resources in terms of manpower and equipment to carry out the business of security on our behalf at this delicate time. They can be relied on to do the job for us. However, ordinary members of the public should be of as much assistance to the Garda in the performance of their duty as it is possible to be in particular at a time such as this. Not only should co-operation come from the public but also intending passengers at our airports should give the maximum possible co-operation to the Garda and Army but in a special way to the Aer Lingus security personnel in relation to luggage which, at this very delicate time, can cause such concern, for example, electronic equipment, etc.

Within my own Department I have received many queries in relation to the question of immigrants in this country and in relation to emigration. I am most anxious that the present unfortunate outbreak of hostilities should not give rise to any element of intolerance or suspicion in relation to persons from abroad who are living here and certainly nothing in the form of a witchhunt or harassment in relation to any group, irrespective of their country of origin. I want to acknowledge the co-operation of the media in relation to this aspect of this appalling war. I am satisfied there would be no justification for any form of harassment in this respect. There are clearly defined procedures and conditions for the admission of foreigners to our country and those who fulfil these requirements and abide by them are free and, indeed, welcome to come and to be here.

The great majority of foreigners who come here come for educational purposes, for example, to the College of Surgeons, to the various universities or to other colleges or language schools. These people, almost invariably, are no drain on our economy — in fact quite the opposite. They pay their fees here, they support themselves and by and large they behave in an exemplary way and present no problems for the Garda or anyone else. More than that, I am sure that their presence here among us is positively beneficial to us. It exposes us to new ideas and new cultures. The educational process is not all one way. On the more mundane side I am sure that the relationships and contacts established as a result of foreigners spending a time here are beneficial to our foreign trade and tourism interests. That is the general picture but prudence, of course, dictates that care must be exercised in the regulation of foreigners who wish to live here for a period. This applies at all times, not just at times of particular international sensitivity, such as we have at present. These present controls are exercised by all countries and not just our own. Indeed, we have accepted international obligations in this regard. This entire business of immigration control has assumed much greater urgency and importance by reason of the removal of travel restrictions within Europe, which is due to take place from 1992 onwards, and from the major ramifications that arise from the unprecedented political changes that have taken place in eastern Europe resulting in massive numbers of people from all those areas being anxious to move to and live in the west.

All of these factors have already dictated that strict controls are in place at our external frontiers to ensure that immigration is properly controlled in our own immediate interest and also in recognition of our obligations to our EC partners and others. We have, for example, an obligation to ensure that our country is not used as a convenient transit route for foreigners who wish to come here, not to remain, but as a means of gaining easy entry to another country by reason of our travel arrangements with that other country. All of these arrangements mean that there are in place means of communication between the immigration and security officials at the various countries involved through which the movement of persons regarded as undesirable or suspected of terrorist or subversive behaviour can be checked.

As will be understood, these arrangements are particularly useful at a time of heightened international tension such as we have at present. These means of countering the entry to this country of persons who might be inimical to our interests are in place and are being used.

It would be naive of me to ignore the fact that questions have been asked — I have referred to these already — about Iraqi people living here. I want to say a few words about this matter. Our records show that the number of Iraqis living here is approximately 340. As is the case with most of the foreigners who are living here, the great majority of them are here for educational purposes in our medical colleges, universities and other educational establishments. There is no reason to think that any of them are or would engage in any activity which would pose any threat to us.

As I said at the outset of my remarks on this general topic of immigration and the security issues attached to it, I am most anxious that present world events should not focus any unfair attention on any of our foreign guests, irrespective of their nationality. I have absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that any of these guests would in any way abuse the hospitality which we have displayed towards them. That has been the position up to now and I have every confidence that that is how it will remain in the future.

In conclusion, I want to reassure the House, and through it the people of the country, that all the steps considered necessary by the Garda to preserve the internal security of the State have been taken both by the Garda, in co-operation with and supported by the Army, and by the security personnel of Aer Rianta and those at the airports. All the measures considered necessary by the Garda have been taken. The measures put in place in relation to airports, the security at embassies and the security of installations and facilities considered to be sensitive by the Garda are wideranging and are constantly being monitored and upgraded. Any further measures considered necessary by the security forces to provide the maximum protection for the people of our country, or those travelling through it, will be put in place.

Mr. M. Higgins

Having listened to the speeches made today I am even more impressed than I was at the beginning of the debate by the need for our speeches on this rare debate of events in the Gulf to be thoughtful, positive and respect the complexity of the situation which has brought us unhappily to war. In that regard some of the speeches have attempted to trace the context of the present conflict. I want to begin by clarifying a couple of matters which, unfortunately, need to be clarified in view of a number of speeches which have been made.

There has been an attempt to suggest that those who are arguing in support of amendments put down to the Government motion are against the United Nations and are soft on Saddam. Those suggestions are not true and both are an attempt to distort our debate today. Indeed, the language used in the speeches of some people who have spoken so far, beginning with Deputy Bruton who used the word "perverse" to describe the amendments put down by the Labour Party and The Workers' Party to the Government motion, got more inflamed as the speeches went on. Deputy O'Keeffe spoke about the "sweet murmurings about peace" and the "fig leaf of neutrality". Other descriptions of participants in this conflict as evil and so on are not necessarily the language of moderation within the United Nations in either the General Assembly or the Security Council. Therefore, I want to, if I can, try to get back to some kind of care or calm as we try to understand what it is that now faces us and the issues proposed and suggested in the Government motion.

There is a principle in the Government motion with which I know no Member of this House would disagree. Paragraph 2 of the motion expresses our deep regret that war has broken out. I have no difficulty about that but we have to be careful in deciding on what we do from this point on. I want to put it on record that the events being covered are being covered in a way which celebrates the culture of war. Indeed, having watched the media coverage of the war through the night, I note that people have, to put it in lay terms, lost the run of themselves in their excitement about the capacities of different missiles and weapons. It is very important for those who understand the nature of war and the nature of peace that both have an accompanying culture.

What we have seen in recent nights and days is a very vicious assertion of the culture of war. This was preceded by the culture of militarism which preceded, in turn, the passing of United Nations resolutions as far back as last August. Indeed, that culture of militarism led to the building up of a military option prior to the taking of Security Council resolutions on the Gulf area and led to the build-up of troops far beyond any defensive capacity. It was the culture of militarism which was directed against every effort of diplomacy. We have got to this point because militarism and its culture have won against the culture of diplomacy, negotiation and peace.

We are now in a new phase — war has broken out. This fills people with regret. I want for a moment to dwell on my point about the cultures of peace and war. There is creeping into the speeches of Members of this assembly the notion that peace is soft — for example, we heard the phrase about sweet murmurings about peace — and that somehow or other being associated with war or militarism is strong and is a matter of growing up in the world. As a previous speaker said, war is appalling. Deputy De Rossa quoted from the book written by John Pilger on the Vietnam War. John Pilger is one of the most distinguished voices standing as an exception in the current climate. How long has war been declared? How many bombing raids have there been? Even though I sat up all night watching coverage of the war I have yet to hear details of casualties in any adequate sense. Has there been a war with no Arab or Iraqi casualties? Does this matter to us? For people who abhor war casualties on all sides are appalling and it is a great failure in human consideration of complex events when that happens.

In many ways what happens in war is that the worst of people's prejudices, including racism, surface and there is a belief that the casualties, children, civilians and others, of the so-called enemy are somehow subhuman or less than human for the moment of the war. It is not any softness of the intellect which says this nor does it put one out of the ambit of morality. I do not have the opportunity in the short time available to me to comment on the scurrilous article in the Irish Independent of 14 January entitled, “Phobias of peace ‘at any price’ quartet” in which a person whose name I will not mention in this House said:

I have very good reason to doubt the certainties of this quartet. Each of them, in particular Mr. Higgins, has a long record of consistency, if not certainty, in opposing just about everything British and everything American.

The article ends with the following: "The rapid prejudices and useless preconceived notions of Michael D. Higgins and his friends have no place in reasoned debate about any issue, least of all about what one newspaper yesterday called Apocalypse Tuesday", I do not apologise to the Irish Independent for exercising my elected right to speak in this House. They are part of the cult of attack on and denigration of people who speak of peace.

The role of the media will be crucial. In so far as people have talked about morality, it carries its moral responsibilities. I am very pleased that John Pilger is once again behaving so responsibly. There are other distinguished journalists involved such as Robert Fisk, but I will not name them all. There are issues that are very important and that are provoked by the motion and by the amendments to it. Let me deal with the question of the United Nations. The people who are proposing these amendments are very well aware that the United Nations' role changed when the geo-political balance was crucially changed by the removal of the Soviet Union as a main player on the international stage. This created a vacuum which could have been filled in any one of a number of ways. One of the possibilities was an increased role for the United Nations and its distinguished General Secretary, Perez de Cuellar, who had already brought about regional settlements in a number of parts of the world. I had the opportunity and privilege of meeting Perez de Cuellar in discussing some regional problems which arose — I referred to Central America.

The newspaper to which I have referred has become another principle of abuse directed against me. I believe that the Dáil today has a choice between assisting Perez de Cuellar back to the position of where he can become general secretary of a United Nations that is working within the vibrant possibilities of all the articles of its charter or of his being discredited in an irrevocable way as somebody who has been forced to carry unsatisfactorily a message to a participant in a conflict as a result of a Security Council resolution with which there are considerable difficulties. Let us keep our heads and be a little accurate about what we are saying in this House. In the past few days I have heard people say that every member of the United Nations is in favour of Resolution 678. The General Assembly has not pronounced on it although, as we have heard recently here, it could, under Article 12, discuss it, but it cannot make a recommendation under Article 10 while the Security Council is discussing the matter. There is a big difficulty here. The Security Council has passed a bundle of resolutions since August, of which 678 is the culminating one. Of the five permanent members of the Security Council, one has abstained on the resolution and, if we include the non-permanent members, two have voted against it. I am not going to judge the arguments for and against, but what I am saying is let us be accurate.

Richard Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton University has appeared before the International Court of Justice, one of the crucial organs of the United Nations, and has been a consultant to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He draws our attention to a number of circumstances surrounding Resolution 678. He says, for instance, that there is the difficulty of not specifying how one is to judge that the preceding resolutions have failed, for example, with regard to sanctions. He specifies the difficulty that there is no limit or duration expressed in the resolution to action within it. He specifies the difficulty that it does not exclude the use of destructive weapons which are referred to in other articles of the United Nations agreements, derived in turn from principles of the charter.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

Could the Deputy give the reference for what he is quoting?

Mr. M. Higgins

Yes, I will. Richard Falk specifies that there is no indication how it is proposed to meet the requirements of other articles of the United Nations Charter which require accountability and guidance for the forces which would act under Resolution 678. I am referring to Professor Richard Falk's article in The Guardian of Thursday, 17 January 1991.

What this illustrates is that the issue of the United Nations and Ireland's relationship to it is not in question by those who are proposing amendments. What they are doing very simply is drawing a basic distinction which seems to have eluded people such as Deputy Bruton who with their rush of blood to the head and in their excursion through the forties abuse the Left. The discussion that was referred to and the quotation from William Norton about Mr. de Valera referred to the general obligation to the UN Charter. There is no difficulty with that, but we should remember what it is. It is a general obligation to the UN and all of the articles of its charter, including the primary obligation to build peace and to avoid war through a process of reconciliation and negotiation. That general overriding principle means that you have to take on board all the articles of the UN Charter. For example, Article 33 imposes on states a fundamental obligation to seek and negotiate a solution to any international dispute that is war threatening. Equally, Article 27.3 to which I referred required the affirmative vote of the Security Council.

I am short of time but I want to make the point that when a country decides on its relationship to matters that have been decided by the Security Council you have to take on board your obligations under all the articles, some of which express a primary obligation in relation to building peace through negotiation. Therefore it becomes of the essence to ask in relation to Resolution 678, which cannot be divorced from the body of 12 resolutions and taken in isolation: "How have you operated in terms of saying that peace has no chance, sanctions will not work and we have come to the brink of war?" You then leave vague what kind of war you are talking about, how it will commence or how it will end, and you do not bother, as you are required under another article, to express a United Nations command for such forces as are going to the particular region. That is the distinction between this case and, for example, the Congo. Irish citizens died in the Congo under a UN-led force. I needed to clarify that point because of the confusion that has been imported into this debate.

It is deeply regrettable that we have had such a limited debate. Let me say what I would have liked. There is a difficulty in international relations. The Security Council passed Resolution 678 on 29 November. It is as if the United States and other forces — I am not arguing against the United States, I would make the same criticism of any country that would use the process in the same way — dropped in for an enabling resolution while they had made the preparations all along, just as some people forget to get their letters of clearance for a wedding.

The Security Council is not in continuous session. Is it the Security Council who will initiate any request to us about the use of Shannon? Under Article 28.3 it is arguable whether it got the assent which is necessary under that Article in so far as China abstained, because the five permanent members have to assent and the assent must be construed as including an abstention, which is non-opposition.

It is not as simple as people say so let us not insult ourselves and Irish Governments of different years and different times — and our people — by saying that because they want to investigate the fullness of such resolutions which would allow negotiation in peace and other measures, they are somehow dragging their feet in relation to the United Nations. It is an unworthy accusation and an insult to our people. I warn the Members who are playing this macho game of referring to our neutrality as a fig-leaf and taking about sweet murmurings of peace that they are not at one with the people in that regard. Our people are a bit more advanced than that and many of them have contacted me to say that while this obsessive coverage of different kinds of weapons is going on throughout the day and night, 14 million Africans, very close to the zone of conflict, are heading towards starvation and death every day.

As the military game show goes on and is commented on there were other acts of violence in different parts of the world, which I also condemn, including the violent attack on people in Lithuania.

Mr. McGahon

Hear, hear.

Mr. M. Higgins

Let us be perfectly clear about one of the reasons I claim to be able to speak on this issue. I have condemned the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein and its annexation. I recall in this House condemning the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988. I remember the western reaction to it and I found it hard to understand at the time why the Western nations did not have apoplexy. However, there were two good reasons at the time, the people who died were mere Kurds — the quiet racism of that view — and the second reason was that they were selling the means of exterminating the Kurds. Now the 28 moral entrepreneurs are all gathered together to represent the best of the world and claim that they are doing so exclusively but, in their ranks, are the people who sold the mustard gas, the chemical capacity and the means and weapons of destruction.

We will have a real and difficult task at the end of this. How do we make our way back to peace? It will be necessary to emphasise the importance of cultural pluralism and of building mutual understanding so that dialogue can take place. It is, if you believe in the role of negotiation and peace, hard to accept the suggestion that you must never have linkage, even if it means going to war. I imagine that many people in this country certainly do not want to hand any presents of recognition to Saddam Hussein but they also know that you must have some kind of regional solution if it is to endure.

In relation to the specific issues of the use of Shannon, saying that you do not want it to be used is not attacking the United Nations or being immoral. It is being responsible because, by not allowing Shannon to be used, you are saving the capacity to exercise neutrality positively, when all the insults are dropped. It means being able to work with others towards creating a space for negotiation in peace. The casuistry regarding assisting and providing the infrastructure not being participation — that it is a matter of degree and quality and so on, never mind the quality, feel the width — is the kind of argument which has brought us where we are in relation to this confusion about neutrality.

The Labour Party are unequivocal in condemning the invasion and annexation of Kuwait and of Saddam's action. We are unequivocal in demanding the path of peace and we believe that we can use our foreign policy, including neutrality, and, by not allowing Shannon to be used, be free to make a positive contribution towards ending this appalling war and beginning to build a more enduring peace.

Minister for Energy (Mr. Molloy)

If there is any silver lining in this most unhappy episode in current world affairs, it is and continues to be, the virtual unanimity among the full membership of the United Nations that blatant transgressions can be addressed by that body within an agreed moral and legal framework. As a member of the Government I am, of course, well aware of the unceasing efforts made by Ireland not only within the European Community but also using our developed network with friendly states worldwide in an attempt to give diplomatic efforts every possible chance. Regrettably, all these efforts did not give us the result we desperately hoped for; a peaceful resolution that would avoid the horrors of war that are now apparent and, at the same time, restore the faith of all nations, and notably small nations, in a full acceptance of individual state sovereignty.

The depressing events in the three to four days prior to the outbreak of war were a clear unilateral rebuff to diplomacy and peace. Not even the legendary skills of Talleyrand could have cut any ice in Baghdad given the evidence of the effective snubbing of the much-respected Secretary General of the United Nations as well as the instant dismissal by Saddam Hussein of President Mitterrand's last ditch attempt to avoid war.

Ministers for Energy worldwide have a clearer memory of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait than most; those of us with responsibility for energy knew only too well from disturbed political events in the Middle East in the post-war period, and notably those of 1973 and 1979, that the delicately poised international oil market would be shaken. It is a tribute to the increasing robustness and flexibility of this market that the immediate price hike in oil, up to a little above $40, soon moderated and came back to levels which were more acceptable but still had an inbuilt war premium. The knock-on effects of increased energy prices could be indeed very serious for the world economy; it can exacerbate the position of those economies in recession and it can certainly reduce the growth of the economies in a stronger position. Damage and hardship can, however, be minimised provided security of supply is maintained.

We have over recent months taken the necessary precautions to counteract the worst effects of the Gulf situation. As a result, I am pleased to inform the House that we are now in a good state of preparedness. Indeed, as far as supplies are concerned, we are as prepared as possible with our stocks at their highest level in over a decade.

It is very important to note that the structure of energy usage in Ireland over the past number of years has undergone a dramatic change. We are not now as vulnerable to an oil crisis as we were in the early seventies. In 1973, for instance, Ireland was dependent on oil for 75 per cent of its energy requirements. By 1979 this figure had reduced marginally to 70 per cent. Our present dependence on oil is less than 44 per cent. In electricity generation we have moved away from oil to coal and gas as a base load for generation. However, despite these developments, our vulnerability on the transport fuel/side remains unchanged. Accordingly, there were a number of urgent measures which I took at the early stages of the Gulf crisis to reduce the risk in this area. As part of these measures I arranged for the Whiddy oil terminal to be made ready on an emergency basis to receive additional necessary stocks of crude oil. Three large cargoes amounting to 250,000 tonnes of North Sea crude were offloaded using a temporary facility. It must be recognised that the Whiddy terminal is not in a position to be reactivated fully and operate at its rated one million tonnes storage capacity. The jetty was damaged in the Betelgeuse explosion in 1979 and is only accessible on a restricted basis. The large crude storage tanks, each capable of holding almost 600,000 barrels of oil, need extensive refurbishment and cleaning. The pumping and electrical equipment require substantial overhaul and modernisation. The commitment of the local workforce in getting three tanks ready at short notice is to be highly commended. As a result of their efforts it was possible to offload three cargoes into three tanks last September, adding considerably to the level of oil stocks of the State. Since then work has continued on some of the other tanks which require an even greater level of refurbishment and I am pleased to advise that a further two tanks are just now available if needed.

I would also like, at this juncture to express my appreciation of the efforts of Cork County Council and Fire Brigade, the Departments of the Marine and the Environment and the Health and Safety Authority to facilitate my Department and the INPC to get the necessary work done in the shortest possible time. I would also like to acknowledge the part played by the special fire-fighting team drawn from local authorities around the country who made themselves available during the three loadings of crude into Whiddy.

While the present stocks position is very satisfactory I will continue to review the national stock holding in the light of events as they develop. If I consider it necessary to increase the oil stock levels, further limited use could be made of the Whiddy oil storage terminal. The 205,000 tonne crude oil strategic stock at Whiddy is intended to serve Whitegate refinery which also keeps an operational crude oil stock of up to 180,000 tonnes.

The value of holding crude stocks as well as product stocks is that it allows for some flexibility in refining output to meet particular market needs. Indeed the value of Whitegate refinery to the economy has been underscored by the role it has played in the months since the invasion of Kuwait threw the international oil market into turmoil.

Whitegate refinery had been operating at a level of less than 30,000 barrels of oil a day before the crisis. I asked that the refinery be placed on full maximum technical throughput of 50,000 barrels a day with a view to building up national stocks. The management and staff at Whitegate are to be complimented on the skill and innovation which they brought to bear in completing this project and notably their professionalism in achieving such a high level of performance at the refinery.

At my request the Irish National Petroleum Corporation identified all available storage tanks throughout the country for use as strategic oil product stores. They have received the utmost co-operation from the Electricity Supply Board, who provided tanks at Marina in Cork and North Wall in Dublin and from the major oil companies who provided tanks at Limerick and at Dublin port. I am grateful to INPC, the ESB and the oil companies for their immediate response to my request.

The result of the activity of the past few months is that national oil stocks are at their highest level in over a decade. Imports of oil come in bulk form at irregular intervals. This, taken with uneven daily offtake means that stock levels vary from day to day. In aggregate, the position yesterday evening was that we had 90 days of diesel, 100 days of petrol and 300 days of heavy fuel oil in stock.

On the international front Ireland is a member of the International Energy Agency in which the 21 member countries have agreed a comprehensive programme of co-operation in the field of energy. The agency strive to reduce excessive dependence on oil, provide a system of information on the international oil market, work towards achieving a stable trade in energy and have prepared a plan to assist participating countries at a time of major disruption in oil supplies.

The International Energy Agency yesterday notified all member countries of the agency, in line with the decision taken in Paris last Friday, 11 January, that they should now activate the co-ordinated energy contingency plan to draw down approximately two million barrels of oil per day to the market. In addition to that, it has been agreed that demand restraint measures will be taken which have a targeted impact equivalent to an additional half million barrels of oil a day.

The International Energy Agency states that there is no need for concern about physical supplies of oil; that world oil markets are comfortably supplied and that additional refinery capacity is available. It has warned however that the outbreak of hostilities could lead to heightened uncertainty and volatility in the market and, accordingly, the member countries are making available additional oil to meet any possible temporary shortfall which may occur.

The International Energy Agency decision was a welcome one as far as Ireland was concerned and I am happy to say that due to recent action which I took in regard to our strategic stock we now have, on a weighted average basis, sufficient stock to meet approximately 120 days national consumption.

The agency require us to maintain 90 days strategic stocks for use in an emergency and such indeed is our obligation as members of the European Community. For a long time our stocks position was well below our objective but the action which I have taken has ensured that that is no longer the case.

In addition to its activities in the area of stocks the European Commission, in co-operation with Community member states, has been examining measures which could usefully be taken to reduce energy consumption in the event of a shortfall. The role of the Commission has been to assist in identifying such measures and to monitor and co-ordinate the actions which individual member states might take.

The international oil market is characterised by volatility and uncertainty in relation to both price and supply. As long as the developed economies of the West are dependent on the politically unstable Middle Eastern oil producers we can expect that uncertainty to remain.

A further uncertainty in the market is the pattern of demand for oil products. Conventional wisdom in the market pointed to a worldwide oil demand increase of one million barrels a day in 1990. In the event demand fell by one million barrels a day causing a net reduction of two million barrels a day in supply requirements as compared to oil producers' projections. This increased sensitivity in the market, to both the prices and the availability of oil, may indicate a fundamental shift in consumers' attitudes to oil and lead to a more prolonged fall off in demand or at least a cap on the underlying year to year increase in demand.

The widely predicted oil shortage following the removal of Iraqi and Kuwaiti production from the market never materialised. Again, all the experts under-estimated the reserve production capacity of the major OPEC states. Saudi Arabia almost doubled production from 4.5 million barrels a day to over eight million barrels a day. At one stroke the loss of production of two major OPEC states had been replaced. In addition Venezuela, Indonesia, Iran and the North Sea increased production significantly.

As a consequence the supply-demand equilibrium was restored to the market within a few weeks of the invasion of Kuwait and oil prices after an early hike in price stabilised at around $30 a barrel.

While it is heartening to note that yesterday's reaction of the markets to the outbreak of fighting was one of further lowering of oil prices we cannot afford to be complacent. It is very early days yet and nobody can predict with certainty where prices will go.

The price fall also reflects the buoyant level of stocks worldwide and the decision of IEA to release two million barrels a day onto the market with immediate effect. This will serve to further stabilise the market during the current phase of the Gulf crisis. The action of the IEA member states will place more oil on the market than the total Kuwaiti production prior to the invasion last August.

The careful use of our oil supplies and indeed of all forms of energy is an extremely important part of energy policy. Energy conservation has always been a very important element of my Department's energy policy not only because of the contribution which it can make towards satisfying the country's energy needs but also because of the beneficial impact which using less energy has on improving industrial competitiveness, reducing domestic energy bills and countering the negative environmental impact caused by the burning of certain fuels.

Deputies may have noticed that I have placed advertisements in today's newspapers giving advice to householders and private motorists as to how they might make their own contribution to limiting Ireland's demand for energy and of course oil in particular. The items in the list may seem like matters of commonsense and the individual householder or motorist may not feel that anything he or she may do is going to help very much. Let me assure you that this is not the case. By combining our individual efforts in a concerted campaign we can make large impacts in our energy dependence.

Responsible energy use equates with economical energy use, that is, using energy wisely will leave us all with more money in our pockets. Energy conservation is not an inconsequential activity involving little or no reward for those who engage in it.

Many of the tips for economising provided in today's advertisement will cost little or nothing to implement and they are things which ordinary energy users should be doing regardless of the potential threats to oil supplies posed by the present Gulf crisis. They are a repeat of the messages which I and indeed, my predecessors have been trying to get across to the public on many occasions in the past. They should not, therefore, be seen as relevant only in the context of the current crisis but as sound, logical management at the personal level of our energy consumption behaviour.

There are of course continuing programmes for energy conservation in my Department such as energy audits in selected public buildings and in certain sectors of industry. Attention is also being given to conservation of energy in hospitals and hotels. A schools education programme is also being pursued and information facilities are made available to the public through the energy advisory phone service operated by Eolas. Energy efficiency in the industrial sector receives particular promotional attention through the services of the regional energy offices in various locations throughout the country.

The measures being taken to promote energy conservation need to be regularly reviewed however and last year I set up a national advisory group to make recommendations to me on new measures that could be taken to promote energy conservations more vigorously.

I also set up a group to promote the efficiency of electricity end use. I am looking to both of these groups to give a new direction and impetus to conservation and energy efficiency promotional activity.

While I can say with some confidence that the normal marketing and distribution arrangements should be able to cope well with the existing disturbed conditions in the international oil markets it is only prudent that we have access to the best advice and to special participation arrangements at this time. I have, therefore, set up two national groups to advise on how best to manage the Irish oil market until normality returns on the international front. The first committee is a national consultative committee and it is chaired by my Department and comprises representatives from the economic Departments, namely, the Departments of Finance, Industry and Commerce, Agriculture and Food, Tourism and Transport, Labour and the Marine together with the Department of Justice. This committee will channel the requirements of the main sectors of the economy and will act as an early warning system for any possible emerging difficulties. It will at the same time provide an interdepartmental clearing house for quick practical decisions which will head off obstacles whether actual or perceived, before they can translate into significant problems. This national consultative group was appointed yesterday and has already held its first meeting. I am informed that the preliminary work in putting together the committee yesterday already revealed a high degree of cohesiveness and unity of purpose.

In addition, I have also set up a front line operating group which will bring together top executives from the main oil companies, the Irish National Petroleum Corporation, the Confederation of Irish Industry representing industry and business together with senior officials in my own Department. All the participants in this operating group will have a "hands on" knowledge of the Irish oil industry both in terms of supply and consumers requirements. This group will be an intrinsic part of the arrangements which will be in place to monitor and, if necessary, to recommend to me practical options to ensure the smoothest possible operation of the supply and distribution system in the light of any possible emerging shortfall in oil supply internationally.

Once again, this latter group was established yesterday and will have its first full session this afternoon. At the present stage of the Gulf crisis these groups will act as an extremely valuable forum for the exchange of necessary information and advice, but their establishment means that, if necessary, the right mechanisms are in place to ensure that we can manage our oil markets, no matter what the circumstances, in the best way possible.

One other clear message from the present Gulf crisis is the critical interdependence between all nations which is particularly obvious in the operation of the world-wide oil market. However we may view our situation we are infinitely better placed than many countries, notably those of the Third World and certain of the formerly centrally planned economics of eastern Europe. The latter have an acute shortage of hard currency to purchase oil at any price and the additional hardship placed on many Third World countries exacerbates their already difficult economic and financial position.

We have an historically high level of stocks, no foreseeable disruption to our normal source of crude oil in the North Sea and we are full participants in the IEA stock draw arrangements. From this position of relative comfort we should continue to do our utmost to ensure that conflict in the world is replaced by the principles enshrined in the UN Charter so that world problems are confronted by co-operation and not by war. The old proverb "as scath a cheile maireann na daoine" draws on an Irish concept of cooperative neighbourliness based on interdependence. It has equal relevance for the nations of the world.

I want to reply to a comment by Deputy Spring if I have any time left. I find it very disappointing that the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, a former Minister for Energy, should use the occasion of this debate to try to undermine the work of my Department at this critical time. Instead of national co-operation he is indulging in national sabotage. Deputy Spring quotes figures about oil stocks that he claims are facts and implies that the figures issued by the Department of Energy are incorrect and that the situation could lead to a crisis in oil supplies. The figures he quotes are being hawked around by an individual who has a vested interest in certain oil matters that have not been dealt with to his advantage. If Deputy Spring wanted what he calls true facts, surely as a former Minister for Energy the first place he should inquire would be at the Department of Energy. I have checked in the Department and can find no record of any inquiries having been made by Deputy Spring about the level of stocks; yet he says he finds the Department's position incomprehensible. Why does Deputy Spring seek to give credence to incorrect figures when he does not even bother to check the correct figures with the Department of State who are charged by this House with responsibility in these matters?

Miss Flaherty

Sir, I would like to share my time with Deputy Owen and possibly Deputy Dukes.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Miss Flaherty

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this most serious debate. While Fine Gael are actively supporting the UN resolution and its full implementation, we share the sadness that has been expressed on all sides of the House that it has come to this. I am going to do what one of my colleagues on the Labour benches asked us to do, that is refrain from too much emotion. People have been presented as white knights and good guys and bad guys. That is not helpful. We are in a complex international political situation. We are dealing with a difficult issue with limited, unpleasant options as best we can. There is no absolute high moral ground without some merit. There are merits on both sides of the argument here today and I have sympathy with those whose heart calls out for peace at any cost. However, it is important to deal with the issues and oil is at the centre of this crisis. To say that is for some a matter of offence or castigation but we should take it firmly on the chin.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was based on Saddam Hussein's belief that the Kuwaitis were ruining the Iraqi economy by keeping world oil prices at an artifically low level by over-supply. Fear of the loss of the Saudi oil fields to Saddam Hussein led to the arrival of US and multinational forces in the region at the request of the Saudi Arabian Government. Oil is of valid international concern not simply in narrow economic terms. Already the progress of the war to date has led to a dramatic fall in prices. The world's poorest countries were already staggering under the economic impact of the Gulf crisis before war broke out, causing additional problems to the very immense problems they faced already and causing loss of life. Third World economies have been devastated and the price of oil has made their struggle against starvation doubly hard because of having to absorb these costs. The developed world is better prepared for an oil crisis now than at any other time. The lessons of 1973 and 1979 were finally learned.

The International Energy Agency have acted over the past few days to require all participating governments to engage in the programme the Minister has commenced today which attempts to limit and encourage restraint in the use of energy nationally and to provide additional supplies to the market worldwide. This is expected to have the double effect of reducing demand on oil and other energy sources and calming the market by providing further supplies to a market which is fairly well supplied but obviously responds very dramatically to a critical situation.

I took issue with the Minister early this week that he waited for the International Energy Agency to advise him before he began publicly to look for conservation measures. It would have been timely and wise to have encouraged these measures far in advance of waiting for a crisis. As it happens, the conduct of the war to date has led to a drop in oil prices but we cannot rely on that continuing. The issue of conservation, as the Minister rightly says, goes beyond a short term crisis. At the end of his speech today the Minister underlines that oil is precious in the short term and the long term; in crisis or out of crisis these measures are highly desirable but I take the Minister very much to task for his slowness and lethargy in acting in relation to encouraging the public.

I question also the Minister's credentials in the context of wasting energy in State buildings and Government enterprises. He made passing reference to it himself, but is it not a fact that many reports which recommend substaintial savings in energy and how to achieve them lie gathering dust in his Department? Following on the Minister's request to the public to enegage in conservation measures, we in Fine Gael are asking that in the budget there be a serious investment in energy conservation measures by the Government, including a return to modest conservation grants for people, the implementation of energy-saving measures in Government Departments which require capital investment to achieve, and a series of other measures in this area. We believe there is a need for a very substantial budget allocation for that purpose. One measure which was discontinued by this Government and which should be reintroduced urgently to help people to implement the recommendations the Minister has requested today is the reintroduction to householders free of charge of advice by EOLAS on energy matters. It is extremely regrettable that that was discontinued because it was invaluable, offering people assistance in knowing what action to take in their homes.

While it is clearly too early to state categorically that oil prices will now stabilise close to their pre-crisis level, certainly the markets are taking that view. As the Minister indicated in the course of his remarks the stoppage of oil supplies from Iraq and Kuwait had been made good quickly by other oil-producing countries. Stocks in Ireland are at present at a very high level. While there would appear to be some distribution problems — and some distributors are short of home heating oil in particular — these would appear to be simply distributional problems. I share the Minister's concern at the attempt of the Leader of the Labour Party to encourage a sense of panic about stocks in Ireland. It is most irresponsible and may well lead to increasing prices for the Irish consumer if they rush off to buy believing there is some emergency, whereas the fact of the matter is that stocks here and internationally are at a higher level than they were when the world community faced any previous crisis. It is important that we behave responsibly in this matter and give credit where it is due. It should be said that Government action in putting aside certain stocks does meet all international obligations; indeed exceeds that obligation in certain areas. The Irish economy will encounter sufficient problems absorbing costs resulting from the oil crisis of the past six or seven months without creating locally false panic which may lead to increased prices.

Because of the constraints on time I will now defer to Deputy Owen.

Mrs. Owen

I thank Deputy Flaherty for sharing her time with me.

As a country Ireland always has been extremely proud and honoured to participate — I might add with great distinction — in a number of United Nations' initiatives such as those in the Congo in the sixties, in Lebanon, in Cyprus and, more recently, in the supervision of the transition to independence of Namibia.

We cannot be half-hearted in our support of the United Nations; in other words, we cannot dine à la carte at the United Nations table selecting those pieces of the United Nations rules we like, rejecting those we do not. Therefore, when it comes to a point at which it would appear that the only way open to the United Nations to secure and ensure world peace is to support their Resolution 678 which includes the following:

...to use all necessary means to uphold and implement all previous resolutions.

it is regrettable that we would give the world the message in any way that we are weakening in our support of the United Nations. Neither does that mean that we should glory in the trappings of the war now upon us or in the horrible prospect of the mass killings that will and have already taken place in order to fight our political battles. The war is not some kind of childish game of dungeons and dragons which can be played out on a computer, switched off when one decides one has seen or heard sufficient.

I have to say I find it somewhat regrettable that over the past few days — and indeed in the House here today — so much macho language has entered into debate on the war on radio and television and on the part of some of the leading speakers in the House today. Name-calling, trying to use the most intemperate description of somebody else's actions is not the manner in which to express to the world our utter disgust at, first, the action taken on 2 August 1990 by Saddam Hussein against Kuwait or in order to indicate to our fellow members of the United Nations that we accept fully the responsibility that membership of the United Nations requires of us.

I should like to hear — although I must admit I have heard something in the more recent contributions of Members — what decisions this Government have taken in playing our role in diplomatic efforts, participating in any efforts that may be taken to bring about a speedy conclusion to this war. For example, I should like to hear from the Government what facilities and resources they have set aside to offer assistance, whether by way of the provision of nurses, doctors, hospital equipment and so on, as have other neutral countries such as Sweden.

Concentration of this debate on the sole issue of whether planes can fly into Shannon Airport and use the facilities there will create the impression throughout the world that our thoughts go no further than very parochial considerations. Indeed I share the concerns expressed by people living in the Shannon region that such concentration brings their region into sharper focus in this war. For that reason it is the responsibility of the Government to assure the people of that region that they have taken all necessary concerns on board before considering any requests for refuelling, flyover or landing facilities at Shannon Airport. However, I contend we have a responsibility to meet any such request in the full recognition of our responsibility to honour the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. We cannot pick and choose.

As one who, along with other Members of this House, has often been critical of United States foreign policies, I regret the efforts over the past few days on the part of a very small minority to pigeon-hole this debate into whether one is pro or anti the United States. Whether it is because I am a woman and have listened to many women's comments over the past few days, I have found some of the words and actions of journalists reporting on this war sickeningly perverse — I use the phrase advisedly here. The spectre of journalists watching the fireworks displays from their hotel bedrooms, hanging microphones out of hotel bedroom windows and so on does not give a true picture of the horror of war. People have died already, have lost eyes, arms and legs, have suffered tremendously within the short lifetime of this war. We cannot allow this macho reporting to lessen the urgency of the world efforts to bring about peace.

Let us look for a moment at what the United States Secretary of Defence has told us about some of the costs of this war. He has told us that it will cost the US alone two billion dollars per day to run this war. When one remembers that, at the height of the Ethiopian famine in 1984-85 total world efforts injected 1.25 billion US dollars into Ethiopia one begins to appreciate the cost of this war and the much better use to which this money could be put, in that less than one day's cost of this war to the US was invested in attempting to save the lives of 10 million people in Ethiopia. We are already aware that 20 million people are again facing starvation there. It leads me to wonder why Governments with these kinds of resources cannot make better use of them for humanitarian purposes and in securing world peace. I am reliably informed that the joint disaster African appeal in recent weeks is not being responded to by a number of European Governments because they are so preoccupied with the Gulf. For example, I have direct information from Jordan that they expect an influx of one million refugees. The CARITAS organisation there predict they will be unable to cope with that influx; Jordan has lost 50 per cent of its GNP on account of the sanctions imposed against Iraq. There is one practical way in which this Government — without any talk of neutrality or otherwise — could assist in bringing about a speedy end to this war.

I note that Deputy Dukes has just come into the Chamber and I want to leave him the remaining few minutes available to me.

Lest we weaken our resolve to strive to bring a speedy end to this war I might finish with a somewhat grisly quotation but let us not forget that that is what we are talking about here: we are not talking about prizes for reporting or who in this House is for or against neutrality, we are talking about human lives. James Palmer, who fought in the desert battles of the Second World War, had this to say in an article in The Independent on Sunday, 13 January 1991:

Dust was thick and at times we couldn't see more than a couple of yards. Everything was burning and there was a horrible sound of screaming and dying. Some of our tanks were hit and the crews were scrambling out of the blaze to seek shelter in the rocks. The noise was unbelievable.... The next day we went out to the road to recover what Italian tanks we could. There was a smell of burning flesh amid the smouldering ruins. Men were hanging out of the tanks with their legs blackened and these dropped off when we pulled the bodies free. Heaps of gooey black stuff were inside the tanks and these heaps had been men. It was a sight that I shall never forget and I know that my soul will be damned for having been a part of it.

Let us remember those words when we have our own little fights and battles in this House. We are talking about a war where people are dying. We must do everything we can to ensure a speedy end to that way.

Mr. Dukes

I am disappointed with the framework in which we are discussing this issue. We should not have had an argument about whether or not there is a constitutional requirement for this House to debate this issue. It is a moot point whether that is required. My belief is that it probably is, but whether it is required, the issue is of sufficient importance to warrant the Government coming before this House with a specific and detailed statement of what they want this House to support. We do not have that in the motion before us. We do not have a specific statement from the Government on what they want us to do. I regret that, because this issue is so important that we should have clarity in this House on what we are being asked to support.

We have a duty as a member of the UN to support UN action, and we have never been slow in doing that. In this case we have a moral obligation to make it clear that we in this House and the Irish people are not neutral in the face of aggression, are not neutal in the face of the kind of aggression we have seen in the Gulf. Kuwait's crime, if there was a crime, was to have lent money to Saddam Hussein to support his war effort against Iran. Kuwait's crime was to have expected that to be repaid. Kuwait's crime was to have oil in a disputed border area and Kuwait's greatest crime was to be weaker than Iraq.

There has been a great deal of talk and discussion over the last few months about the desirability of a regional solution to this problem. It does not require a genius in military strategy or a great acquaintance with how relationships in the Gulf work, to quickly come to the conclusion that there is not a regional solution available. There is not a state in the area or any combination of states in the area strong enough politically or militarily to contain the aggression of Saddam Hussein. It is clear that if that aggression were to be contained, as it must be, outside help was required. That was the reason for the original Saudi request. We cannot be neutral in the face of that problem.

In the last 24 hours we saw the extra barbarity of a totally unprovoked attack on Israel in a cynical attempt to create a situation where the Arab states that are now co-operating with the UN sanctions would begin to go in different directions, in a cynical attempt to manipulate neighbouring Arab states as a means of allowing free reign to Saddam Hussein's aggression. That cannot be allowed to happen. If we were to add anything at all to our motion here today, it should be a call on those Arab states not to allow themselves to be treated like the puppets that Saddam Hussein seems to want to make of them, and not to allow this unprovoked attack on Israel, which clearly has no aggressive intent against Iraq, to be used to diminish the determination of the coalition group to contain Saddam Hussein's aggression and to free Kuwait.

There have been many calls which will continue to be made for more efforts to find a diplomatic resolution of this problem. We must never let go of the possibility, however remote it may seem, of finding a way of ending this horrible situation in the way that the free world wants to see it ended, with the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Let us not delude ourselves. There has been a great deal of self delusion in this country over the last few weeks about the possibility of taking new initiatives and about the possibility of combining with "neutral and non-aligned states" to in some way find a new initiative. We would find ourselves in extremely doubtful company if we were to make common cause with some of the "neutral and non-aligned states", for example Cuba, in trying to find a way through this problem. I also doubt the wisdom of bringing forward another initiative when all of the main actors, including the Secretary General of the UN, have failed in their attempts — and God knows they have put work into those attempts — to find a diplomatic resolution to this problem without going into the horrors of war.

The question we should be asking ourselves here today is not a vague one, as put before us by the Government, is not whether or not we should allow facilities at Shannon for certain kinds of activities, but, what more we can do to support those states that are working with the sanction of the UN to put an end to that particular Iraqi aggression. I regret that that question was not before us.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

I, like almost every other speaker, very much regret that we must discuss the outbreak of war. We are all agreed that with the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf, during the last two days the world has become a much more dangerous place. The Government very much regret that the many efforts to secure a peaceful outcome to the crisis have proved unavailing and that the military option has been employed. I wish to outline to Deputies how the situation developed since 2 August last year, the efforts made to resolve the crisis and the views of the Government as the crisis evolved and as to where we in Ireland now stand.

As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerard Collins, reported to the House on 29 August last the Iraqi invastion on 2 August and purported annexation of Kuwait on 8 August represented the most flagrant violation of the UN Charter since the end of the Second World War. Amnesty International published on 19 December a detailed description of the widespread abuses of human rights perpetrated by Iraqi forces in Kuwait since 2 August. Apart from the basic abuse of the right of self-determination of Kuwait, the Iraqi annexation of that country has inevitably resulted in abuse of the human rights of the population there. Indeed, it should be said that the greatest abuse of a human right is the annexation of one country by another.

The response to this aggression from the international community was swift. On the day of Iraq's invasion the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 660 condemned the invasion and called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces and the immediate start of negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait. When this call was ignored, the Security Council imposed sanctions on 6 August under Resolution 661. The sanctions imposed covered trade in all commodities and products with Iraq, excluding those supplies intended strictly for medical purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs. There followed a further ten resolutions culminating in Resolution 678 on 29 November which authorised those countries co-operating with the Government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to enforce the relevant resolutions if Iraq did not comply with them by 15 January. As the House will be aware, Iraq's response to these appeals was to ignore them.

The United Nations Security Council resolutions provided the most visible expression of the extent of the unprecedented solidarity within the international community, but the efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis did not stop there. The UN Secretary General met Iraq's Foreign Minister in Amman on 30 August. Over four months later when the Secretary General travelled to Baghdad for a meeting with the Iraqi President he found no evidence of any willingness to withdraw from Kuwait. Regrettably, the efforts of among others, the USSR, other Arab countries such as Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and Syria, as well as Zambia, and appeals from many world leaders, including His Holiness Pope John Paul, all came to naught. Iraq has refused to withdraw and in recent days has repeated its position that Kuwait had become its 19th province and would never be given up.

The approach of the Government to the situation in the Gulf since 2 August has been based on the principles of the United Nations Charter. We believe that it is inadmissable to use force to settle disputes between countries. It is intolerable in the late 20th Century that a country should purport to simply end the existence of a member of the United Nations and when the country that takes that action is itself a member of the United Nations it exacerbates the situation. As a small country we look to the maintenance of international law as the best safeguard for our future and to the United Nations to uphold a system of order, justice and law between nations. We saw the unprecedented international solidarity achieved in respect of the Gulf crisis as the best hope of convincing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and in accordance with our obligations under the Charter we have fully supported the measures taken by the UN. In the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the United Nations General Assembly in September last the Minister made it clear that we believed that it was of the greatest importance that a political solution be found through full implementation of all the resolutions of the Security Council. That was our belief and our hope.

We have, together with our partners in the Community, actively striven over the period since 2 August to realise that hope. As part of the EC Troika until the end of last month, we have played a particularly active role. The Minister for Foreign Affairs participated in a Troika mission on 15-17 August to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The Community took the view that only the most effective operation of sanctions could have a chance of a successful outcome and in our contacts with other countries we argued strongly in this regard.

As Deputies are aware, the Community also offered to meet with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in the Presidency capital and later in Algiers but this was refused. Through the Presidency statement of 4 January the Twelve indicated clearly that if the resolutions of the Security Council are fully and unconditionally implemented Iraq should receive the assurance that it should not be subject to a military intervention. In the same statement the Twelve reaffirmed their commitment to contribute actively to the settlement of other problems of the region and to work for the establishment of security and stability as soon as the crisis in the Gulf was resolved. The European Council on 15 December indicated that the Community were in favour of the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East at an appropriate time. All of this testified to the fact that everything was done to find a peaceful solution but our efforts foundered on the rock of Iraqi intransigence.

Our efforts to preserve peace failed and this is a matter of deep regret to the Government but I think it is important to emphasise that the responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves lies with the Government of Iraq. The action of Iraq on 2 August, and subsequently, posed a serious challenge to the authority of the United Nations and I believe all Members of the Dáil would agree that it is a challenge which had to be met if the system of collective security represented by the United Nations is to have any credibility.

The Government shared the view of the international community generally that in meeting this challenge reliance on effective sanctions would be preferable to the military option. Regrettably, sanctions of this kind alone have not proved enough. Many factors combined to make war unavoidable. Chief of these, of course, was the obstinate refusal of the Iraqi leadership to avail of any reasonable way out of the crisis which it had itself provoked. As well as that there were serious dangers inherent in delaying the action; with additional time Iraq's efforts to undermine the solidarity of those ranged against on it would become more effective; delay would have given Iraq time to strengthen its defence against an eventual attack, including the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons; and the damage caused by the crisis to the economies of neighbouring and Third World countries would have been prolonged. Once the Security Council authorised the use of all necessary means after the deadline of 15 January if Iraq failed to comply with the relevant resolutions by then, the necessary authority was in place for the forces involved to apply military action to enforce compliance. Those countries co-operating with the Government of Kuwait have now chosen this military response.

Ireland will not participate in these hostilities but we will honour fully our obligations under the UN Charter. There has been much comment in recent days about the implications of the Gulf war for our neutrality. The question of neutrality does not arise in a situation where member states of the United Nations, with the express authorisation of the Security Council, are pursuing action to enforce compliance with its resolutions. As to the question of whether the Government are prepared under these circumstances to make available refuelling and landing facilities to the member states acting under Resolution 678, I wish to make it clear firstly that we have not received any such request. It is nonetheless our view that the provision of such facilities would come within the terms of appropriate support as requested by the Security Council in paragraph 3 of that resolution and that the provision of such facilities would not constitute participation in the war in the Gulf.

The destructive effects of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the terrible consequences wrought upon the perpetrators by the military response of the past few days serve to underline the need to keep faith with the United Nations organisation. We must continue to hope that the fundamental precepts contained in the United Nations Charter, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", will guide relations between nation states. The first article of that Charter recalls that the purposes of the United Nations are: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to achieve international co-operation; to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainments of these ends.

The measure of progress achieved in the past two years, resulting in the end of Cold War confrontation, cannot be allowed to lose momentum in the face of irresponsible actions on the part of one member of the international community. The UN remains the best quarantee that an international system of justice and law and order will prevail and that peace and stability among nations can be secured for future generations. This guarantee is especially important for small nations like Ireland. We should not forget that Kuwait, too, is a small nation.

When the weapons are laid down by those involved in this conflict in the Gulf, which we all earnestly hope and pray will be in the near future, the United Nations, through the Security Council and with the full commitment of the international community, will need to reaffirm the collective will for a peaceful and secure world order. We too, along with our partners in the European Community, are committed to doing our part to ensure the attainment of this objective.

I know that my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be referring to some of the points made by previous speakers when he addresses the House at the conclusion of this debate. I would, however, like to make one or two comments about some of those earlier remarks. Deputies Spring and De Rossa would have us believe that should we grant these facilities at Shannon to the US this would make us a participant in the war. As the Taoiseach said in the debate this morning, it would put an extraordinary strain on ordinary language if the mere granting of facilities could be interpreted as making Ireland a participant in the war.

Any decision in regard to the granting of facilities must take into account our obligations under the United Nations Charter. I reject also suggestions that the Government have done little to stop the war. I outlined in my address to the House some of the efforts that have been made. Through the European Community we have actively supported the efforts aimed at achieving a peaceful outcome. Indeed, we also supported the last ditch initiative of France and we deeply regret that Iraq did not indicate any willingness to withdraw from Kuwait. As I said earlier, Iraq's intransigence has resulted in the situation in which the world now finds itself; it has resulted in all efforts at a peaceful solution coming to naught.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

With your permission I will be sharing my time with Deputies Durkan, T. Ahearn and Carey.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

To raise the issue of neutrality in relation to our obligations under the United Nations Charter is a frivolous abuse of this concept. Neutrality involves non-participation in wars between states or groups of states and non-involvement in alliances of groups of states. There are, of course, arguments for and against neutrality in these terms but these arguments are, by definition, irrelevant to the present issue.

As Deputy Bruton in his contribution this morning made explicit, the fact is there are binding obligations in international law arising from our membership of the United Nations into which we freely entered in 1955 on the basis of a decision taken by the Dáil in 1946. These obligations relate to collective security and we are not entitled to be neutral in respect of these obligations; indeed, we cannot be neutral in relation to them.

Deputy Spring in his amendment has cited Article 43 of the United Nations Charter, without actually specifying in the text of his amendment that this is the Article he is quoting. When I read the Article in the Charter and read his resolution, his position is precisely Article 43 and nothing but Article 43. He has based his case in his resolution entirely on the wording of this Article, but as he should know, Article 43 has no application in the present instance. It is totally irrelevant and any argument based on it has no foundation. This Article has not been invoked by the Security Council nor has any State, so far as I am aware, proposed that it should be invoked. It is the Article under which the Security Council itself takes action, but it has not been proposed and it has not occurred. Actions at present being taken are not actions by the Security Council under this Article. The terms of the Article are, therefore, irrelevant and I fail to see why they have been introduced into this debate in this way.

The relevant Article upon which Resolution 678 and earlier resolutions in relation to the Gulf crisis have been adopted by the United Nations Security Council have been founded in Article 51 of the UN Charter, as Deputy Taylor-Quinn made clear this morning. This Article relates to and specifies the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence and it states that nothing in the Charter shall impair this inherent right if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security — actions which in this case the Security Council have not taken and which no one has hitherto proposed as far as I am aware.

Article 51 goes on to say that measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council. This has been done in this instance. Resolution 678 of the Security Council adopted under the provisions of this Article, and therefore now part of international binding law, authorises member states to co-operate with the Government of Kuwait — unless Iraq on or before 15 January fully implements earlier resolutions, to co-operate with the government of Kuwait — to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant Resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. The actions now being taken by a number of countries are part of a process of collective self-defence — that is the word used in the United Nations Charter — in relation to Kuwait and derive their authority from this resolution, which goes on to request that all states provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of this Resolution. Is the Security Council entitled to make such a request in relation to actions not taken under Article 43? Yes, it is.

Article 25 of the Charter provides that members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter — that is the Article mentioned by the Taoiseach this morning. For some reason, however, the Taoiseach did not mention the relevant Article which specifies the obligation to assist — that is Article 49. This is the Article which relates to mutual assistance of states to each other in carrying out resolutions. It does not relate, as Deputy Spring endeavoured to mislead the House into believing, to actions by the Security Council. Article 49 provides that the members of the United Nations shall — and that is mandatory — join in affording mutual assistance — that is States helping each other — in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

In Resolution 678 the Security Council specifically authorised the actions now being taken and specifically requested other states to assist in these actions, as it is entitled to do in a mandatory way under Article 49 of the UN Charter. Article 49 contains no other provisions that Deputy Spring spoke of, which are irrelevant to this debate, about special agreements for the provision of armed forces or of assistance, or facilities or rights of passage to be negotiated on the initiation of the Security Council. Those only arise when the Security Council is acting, and the question of agreements of that kind is irrelevant. Its inclusion in the resolution has had the effect of probably confusing some people in the House and, perhaps, people outside.

I regret that this debate has been thoroughly confused by the failure of the Taoiseach in opening the debate to make these points clear to the House. It is a pity he did not cite Articles 49 and did not point out the relevance of Article 43. This, together with the incorrect reference by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to Article 43 — further confusing the House — has set this debate off on the wrong track and has helped the Labour Party to confuse the issue further by citing this irrelevant Article in defence of the thesis set out in their proposed amendment.

The Workers' Party amendment bears no relationship to the UN or its obligations. The speech made by Deputy De Rossa was designed to suggest that you can ignore the obligations of international law you take on under the UN Charter if you do not like what the Security Council decides. But as Deputy Bruton pointed out, Mr. de Valera when introducing this issue in this House made it clear that the things you may be called on to do by the UN Security Council may be things you do not want to do or do not like doing, such as helping an unfriendly State against a friendly State. That is the obligation we took on with our eyes open.

Deputy De Rossa is not entitled to suggest that we can ignore these obligations if we do not like the way the Resolution is worded, how it was arrived at or how it is implemented. The only way collective security will ever exist is if there can be binding obligations to do things you do not want to do or do not like, but if the people can pick and choose and decide what obligations they accept and what obligations they do not accept, there is no collective security, there is nothing but anarchy in the world and defensive and aggressive alliances and continuing war.

This is the first time since the last war that there has been a possibility of collective security and collective self-defence operating under the UN Charter. Anybody who undermines that or casts doubt on what is involved in threatening ultimately the peace of the world in the next century which dpends upon the operation of the UN Charter as it can now operate, for the first time, at the end of the Cold War.

I regret that this issue has been confused in this House by the manner in which the Government have presented it and by the terms of the Labour Party resolution and the irrelevant nonsense we have had from The Workers' Party. I now concede my time to Deputy Ahearn.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I thank Deputy Garret FitzGerald for sharing his time with me.

Now that hostilities have broken out in the Gulf our hearts must go out to those whose lives are at risk in that conflict. Indeed, our greatest hope must be that the loss of life will be kept to a minimum. The dominant question in this debate is whether we should aid the Americans if we are asked to do so. Indeed we must also ask whether we aid them on a voluntary basis and, as Deputy Bruton said this morning, even on our own initiative. We supported the UN sanctions against Iraq because we believe Iraq to be an unjust aggressor in the invasion of Kuwait. Even though all the diplomatic and peaceful means used to try to solve this conflict have failed and war has now broken out, the basic situation is the same — Iraq remains an unjust aggressor in the invasion of Kuwait.

The United Nations forces, sanctioned by the most representative gathering of nations which has ever existed on this globe, are fighting for the liberation of a small nation like our own. Questions may be raised as to the pedigree of Kuwait as a nation but there is scant evidence to prove that the Kuwaiti people are interested in voluntarily becoming the 19th province of Iraq. It is interesting to note that Saddam Hussein failed to get any Kuwaiti person to head up the puppet government which he announced he intended setting up.

The Americans are spearheading the effort to free Kuwait and are doing so with the full support of the United Nations and a significant number of other nations who have committed their people to battle. If our neutrality means that we will be neutral in this conflict I believe it is high time we took a long hard look at our neutrality. Neutrality in this context is defined as not taking the part of any side in a conflict, as being impartial but uninvolved. We cannot afford in this modern world to be uninvolved. If this war is justified let us say so and make our small voice heard loud and clear at the United Nations. If it is justified, however regrettable it may be, let us equally stand up and be counted in the cause of freedom.

All nations act primarily from a motive of self-interest. Undoubtedly the Americans have an interest in the world economy and in the safe supply of cheap oil but surely so have we. We should not be impartial in this conflict and should offer help to the United Nations forces if we are asked to do so.

Mr. Durkan

I propose to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Carey.

Like other speakers, I am saddened at the unfortunate conflict which is now taking place in the Middle East and that all the attempts by various interest groups throughout the world failed to bring about a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Like other speakers I have no doubt about the root cause of the problem — the annexation by Saddam Hussein of Kuwait. The other problem — there has not been much reference in the House to this — is that the United Nations were not dealing with a democracy. If they were dealing with a democracy, even a lapsed one, there might have been a chance that the economic blockade would have succeeded.

I have watched what has been happening very carefully over the past number of weeks. Like other speakers in the House I have read as carefully as I could the events leading up to the last world war. There is no doubt but that a particular parallel can be drawn between the two wars. We are all aware of the millions of unfortunate people who lost their lives in World War II. We know that economic sanctions were applied in the run up to that war but that they failed because one of the countries involved at that time in the old league of nations was not a democracy and did not have regard to the views of the other democratic member states.

Likewise in this case, the same weakness exists in the argument of waiting for the economic sanctions to have effect. I do not think they would have the desired effect in this instance. We must measure this against the background of the massive public relations campaign entered into by Saddam Hussein after the anexation of Kuwait. The Western press were very gullible in covering that campaign. Practically every time one turned on the television one heard an ambassador, spokesman or emissary putting Saddam Hussein's case across the world through the Western media, whom I believe were particularly gullible.

Various spokespersons have said that perhaps the West are treating Saddam Hussein wrongly, and that he is a very clever man. We fully appreciate that he is a very clever man — there is no doubt about it — but so was Adolf Hitler and we know what he did. If we do not support the United Nations resolutions and are not seen to support them in so far as we can without actual military intervention but by the provision of facilities in this country there is a grave danger that we could be seen as copping out. If the present conflict is not brought to a quick conclusion with the minimum loss of life and Saddam Hussein is allowed to develop the weapons which he is now obviously developing, there is a danger that millions of lives could be lost in the next number of years.

Mr. Carey

I wish to join in the call made here today by Deputy John Bruton to the Irish Government to fully support the United Nations in their efforts to try to resolve this dispute. To date we have been given a one sided view of what Irish people want in terms of peace and, as has been illustrated here today, different emphasis is being put on this issue by different parties.

The impression which has been given to the people in my constituency, which happens to include Shannon Airport, is that the Irish Government are going to set up a war zone in County Clare but that the peacemakers want to resist that. I do not believe the Irish Government are going to be asked to do anything of the kind. After all, the United Kingdom Government have a free airport at Prestwick in Scotland and it is not to be used in this conflict. I do not believe the Irish Government will be asked to make any decision in favour of the United States Government.

I want to put it on the record that the authorities at Shannon Airport have always conducted themselves properly in the context of our neutrality as pursued by different governments. If military aircraft land at Shannon Airport they will have to obey certain rules and regulations. In addition, if the crews on certain aircraft give certain information they are sent to what are called remote stands on the airport apron. Everyone in Shannon knows that proper care is being taken of them. I have not heard anyone, including the Taoiseach, giving an assurance here today to the local community of Shannon that if permission is given to the US Government to use the facilities at Shannon, all steps will be taken to protect them, or that both he and his Government are concerned about how Shannon could be used. There was no reference in the Taoiseach's speech to any protection which might be given to my constituents if the American fleet are allowed to use Shannon Airport on their way to the Gulf. However, as far as the airport is concerned there is already evidence that considerable business has been lost. I refer in particular to charter aircraft that fly from west to east transporting mainly dependants of American military personnel. Instead of those flights landing at Shannon and using the facilities there they are now directed to Brussels. As Deputies in this House are well aware there is a major struggle to keep the airport viable.

Much hysteria has been generated by statements in the press and on local radio, and constituents have rang me asking me not to vote to bring mustard gas bombs into Shannon. People are cringing in fear as a result of statements which have been made by supposedly responsible politicians in this House. I want to assure the people in Clare that I have never found fault with the management of the airport at Shannon. They have stood rigidly by the international regulations which are very stringently imposed. When talking about neutrality — we are making this game of peace — we should talk about the national interests. The airports at Dublin, Knock, Cork and Waterford should be considered just the same as Shannon Airport. Why should politicians target Shannon airport for this exercise?

I am calling on the Government to give the assurances that are necessary to the people of counties Limerick and Clare who are in the flight path, and deny the claims that 88 aircraft belonging to the Coalition landed in Shannon recently. This headline in the Sunday Tribune could not be denied by the Department of Foreign Affairs for a number of days. I do not know what the Department of Transport were doing but the Department of Foreign Affairs could not deny it. As far as the local issue is concerned my plea is that consideration for Shannon airport be maintained in this House, particularly by the Deputies who are most anxious, apparently too anxious, for peace.

Mr. Gilmore

There are a number of questions which have to be addressed on this matter. The first one which has been raised is whose war is this: one would think to hear the contributions that have been made today that this is a United Nations war. This is not a United Nations war. The decision to send troops to the Gulf on 2 August was made not by the United Nations but by the United States and its allies. The initiative to set a deadline was taken by the United States and not by the United Nations. The decision to attack Iraq was taken by the United States and not by the United Nations. The very dishonest approach which has been taken that in some way this is a United Nations war has to be nailed very firmly. This is a war essentially between Iraq and its allies and the United States and its allies in the Gulf.

The second thing that has to be put to rest is the implication that if you say you are opposed to the war in the Gulf you are in some way soft on Iraq. This House would need to be reminded that those of us who are saying no to the war in the Gulf are people who have a long record of opposition to the Iraqi regime, to their behaviour towards the Kurds and to their behaviour towards their own Opposition. Many of us voiced opposition to the execution by Hussein of his own Opposition in his own State while the people who are now lined up against him in the Gulf were supplying him with arms and building the machine which enabled him to invade Kuwait so brutally.

There is another question that has to be addressed, that is, did there have to be a war. There is an implication — and it has been stated here a number of times — that all of the options have been exhausted, that diplomacy was exhausted, that sanctions were exhausted and that, therefore, there was no option but to go to war. It has also been implied that the people who are holding this supposedly naive view are the parties of the left in this House. There are very many more people who have taken the view that there was no need to go to war in the Gulf at this stage. Over 40 per cent of the membership of the Congress of the United States and over 40 per cent of the Senate of the United States opposed the decision to go to war at this stage. Edward Heath, the former United Kingdom Prime Minister who is hardly known for his left-wing views, expressed a very clear opinion that sanctions had not been given sufficient time to work in the Gulf.

There is a large body of international opinion and a large body of opinion within the United States itself which holds very firmly the view that at this stage there was no need to send in the troops in the way that has been done without having given a greater opportunity for sanctions or for diplomatic activity to work. It is quite wrong for people to imply that to raise this issue, to raise the fundamental question about whether or not there should now be slaughter and mayhem, is in some way expressing an anti-American view. That has to be scotched firmly on the head. There is, as I have said, a very substantial body of opinion within the United States that has already opposed that point of view.

What is happening in this House today is very sad. We have heard many speeches, particularly from the Government, from Deputy O'Malley, Minister for Industry and Commerce, and from Deputy Bruton, the net effect of which is to abandon the position of independent foreign policy-making which we had traditionally cherished in this country. Of course to do so it is necessary to confuse and distort issues because the abandonment of a principle like that is not likely to be supported by the great majority of people in this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I would be grateful if he would please bring his speech to a close.

Mr. Gilmore

I was saddened in particular to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is normally noted for his reasoned approach resorting to the old tactic of if you cannot answer the argument you go for the man. Immediately after that, in an exercise of shuttle diplomacy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs had a few words with him before having a further few words with the representatives of the diplomatic corps.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time has come to call the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerard Collins.

Mr. Garland

I have been waiting here but no representative from the Independent benches has been called today. That is a disgrace and I would like to put it on the record of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I sympathise with the Deputy but the duration of this debate was very short. I am calling on the Minister to reply.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Collins)

The Taoiseach has set out very fully our approach of principle at this crucial juncture of international law and I should like to add some general considerations.

The build-up of this crisis since the brutal annexation of Kuwait at the beginning of August has meant that our attention has been especially on putting an end to this illegality but we have not, at the same time, been blind to issues arising in the region as a whole. The Government do not accept that illegality or injustice elsewhere in the world — or more narrowly in the region itself — justify the Iraqi action in annexing Kuwait. Far from it, that Iraqi action is unprecedented in purporting to swallow up one of the member states of the United Nations and our attention now in the first place must be on putting an end to this flagrant act of illegality.

Saddam Hussein is not the leader of the Arab world. The Arab world is a much larger and a much more principled one than some vocal supporters of Iraqi illegality would like it to appear. A number of Arab countries are prominent participants in the broad international consensus aimed at reversing the act of 2 August last and a number of them have been very active in co-operation with the Twelve in trying, by diplomatic means, to persuade the Iraqi leadership that it would have to withdraw from Kuwait and restore legality. Our relations with the Arab world are very important.

Before the invasion of Kuwait, in particular during the Irish Presidency early last year, we had, as Twelve, succeeded in putting back on the rails the Euro-Arab dialogue which had been in the doldrums for many years. Among the first casualties of the Iraqi violation of the sovereignty of Kuwait was, unfortunately, much of what has been achieved by these efforts. For all that, the importance of the relations of the West with the Arab world has not lessened. We continue to emphasise it and that is why, despite the fact that war has broken out, in order to restore legality in the Gulf, we must also look to the longer term and the situation which we would like to see when the crisis is over.

Ireland has long been a proponent of an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations to find a resolution of the Arab-Israeli dispute and the Palestinian problem. Indeed the Twelve have for many years now, since 1986, been on record publicly in support of such a conference. Such support cannot be interpreted as a reward for the Iraqi leadership as it dates from long before the outbreak of the current crisis and arises from the objective evaluation of the Twelve of what is required in order to arrive at an acceptable resolution of this long-standing dispute.

The Community will also work for a framework of security and stability in the Middle East region as a whole. In this regard also a discussion had begun in the Community before the invasion of Kuwait. Economic and regional stability in the Middle East are evident interests of all European countries. There are enormous development problems in the Arab world as a whole which exist side by side with very great wealth concentrated in few hands. This is a situation which cries out for action but, of course, it is mainly a matter for the Arab countries themselves.

Everyone will accept that the presence of large military forces in the region is not in anyone's interests. As well as that, close consideration must be given to the problems raised by large accumulations of arms, some of the most sophisticated and lethal kind, in several countries in the region. The dangers posed by nuclear proliferation have been brought home to us especially vividly by the developments surrounding this crisis. When the current crisis is over we will be able to devote the necessary attention and resources to advancing our interests under these headings also with the full participation, of course, of all the states concerned in the region and of the international organisations directly concerned.

I should like to add a word about the very important role the Community has played in ensuring the right focus on the crisis as it developed. The intensity of consultation within the Twelve on the issue is unprecedented; there were three extraordinary ministerial meetings during the period of August and early September and there were four such meetings in January of this year. The Community's efforts have been directed entirely at avoiding the need for recourse to military action, while fully respecting the Security Council's resolutions. In our pursuit of this goal we have, as Twelve, indicated our willingness to meet the Iraqi leadership, an invitation which that leadership did not see fit to follow up.

The Twelve Foreign Ministers met the United Nations Secretary General on his way to Baghdad last weekend and the Secretary General characterised the meeting as encouraging. He said it strengthened his hand. Indeed, only yesterday, the Twelve Foreign Ministers met again and expressed their deep regret that the use of force had been necessary. While reiterating our support for the Security Council resolutions, we are still, as Twelve, intent at this stage on ensuring that the wider scene in which this crisis unfolds is not lost sight of. In the declaration which we issued after our meeting yesterday — and which I am placing in the Dáil Library — we again reiterate our position on the issues which I have been outlining and our commitment to act on them when international legality is restored.

These issues are the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian problem, the importance of European-Arab relations, social justice, economic stability and security of the region as a whole. The Twelve are very well placed to play an important role in all these issues and we have committed ourselves to an active contribution in these areas.

I should also give the House an account of the situation of our citizens in the region. Since the invasion of Kuwait in early August the Government have accorded priority to the safety and welfare of our citizens in the Gulf region. We have offered appropriate advice to those concerned about their situation and to those who have been considering travelling to the area. In addition, we have actively assisted those Irish citizens in the area who wished to leave and who had difficulty in doing so. Members of the House will recall the particular difficulties which Irish citizens resident in Iraq and Kuwait had to face and will share with me the relief that all those who had been detained against their will in Iraq and Kuwait have been able to leave.

In the case of Saudi Arabia our main concern has been the Irish citizens living in the areas most vulnerable to attack, the eastern province and the areas of Riyadh and Tobruk. The Irish Embassy in Riyadh have arranged the distribution of gas masks to those Irish citizens who have chosen to remain in those areas. In addition, with the active co-operation of members of the local Irish communities, the embassy have set up a system of coordinators to ensure that they can maintain contact with our citizens. Contingency plans have been drawn up regarding evacuation in case such action should become necessary. The co-ordinators will play a key role if it becomes necessary to implement these plans.

In the cases of Bahrain and Qatar, which are also within missile range of Iraq and Kuwait, we have arranged for the British embassies in those two countries to distribute gas masks to our citizens on our behalf. I wish to place on record my personal appreciation — and that of the Government — for the outstanding co-operation which we have received from all our Community partners, in particular Britain, throughout this crisis. Since the outbreak of hostilities my Department have been in constant contact with our representatives in the Gulf region. I assure the House that the Irish citizens who have chosen to remain in the area are safe and well. The ambassador in Riyadh has assured me that the coordination systems which have been established in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are working well and that the co-ordinators report that the Irish communities remain calm. We are also monitoring the situation in the other countries in the region, including those Gulf states which are out of missile range of Iraq and Kuwait and which, therefore, are less threatened.

I am glad to have this opportunity to reassure the House with regard to the safety of our citizens and to confirm that the arrangements we have put in place are working satisfactorily. We will, of course, continue to monitor the situation closely.

I would now like to take up some of the points made by Deputies. I am genuinely pleased that Deputy Bruton agrees with the Government on the central importance of the United Nations for the international system as a whole. This has been and continues to be one of the main elements of the foreign policy of the Government. I must dispute Deputy Bruton's assertion that this is the first time the Government have made a really clear statement on the importance of an effective United Nations. Indeed, I need only cite my statement to the General Assembly last year that the Gulf crisis has demonstrated the importance of the United Nations. I said: "This is the forum where the collective will of the international community can be expressed in the interests of the maintenance of international peace and security".

As to our obligations under the United Nations Charter to accept and carry out Security Council resolutions, the Government have stated clearly how they propose to proceed. We urge the Dáil in the motion to declare its support for Resolution 678 which requests all states to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the resolution. The Government have said that the provision of refuelling and landing facilities for military aircraft, if requested to do so, would come within the terms of the appropriate support and I am glad that Deputy Bruton agrees with this.

There can be no question of invoking neutrality in connection with our obligations under the United Nations Charter. All members of the United Nations, regardless of their declared status, agree to be bound by the Charter. I repeat that among the obligations, arising out of the Charter, is that of Article 25 which is of particular relevance in the present instance. It provides that "the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". It must be clear that a collective security system, which is what the United Nations sets out to be and in which, as the Taoiseach has pointed out, Ireland and other small countries have a major interest, could not operate if its Charter was to be regarded as an à la carte menu for members to pick and choose among its provisions as they wish.

Mr. J. Bruton

Hear, hear.

Mr. Collins

That is not the Government's view. Ireland accepts its Charter obligations just as Sweden and Austria do.

Deputy Spring has said that sanctions should have been allowed to work. Of course, everyone would have wished the sanctions to work and these include, very definitely, the states now acting in the Gulf under paragraph 3 of Resolution 678. Deputy Spring seemed to say that the allies made war inevitable. The Government's view, however, is that it was the Iraqi leadership who made war inevitable. It is my wish that this argument will not make this House and the people lose sight of the central fact that it was the invasion and annexation of a small United Nations member state by Iraq and Iraq's refusal over a period of five months to accept all incentives of the international community to comply with its obligations under international law that made war unavoidable.

I would like to say to Deputy De Rossa that this war, very clearly, is not about oil; it is about a very important principle, the right of all nations to be free from aggression. Such aggression cannot conceivably be justified by injustice elsewhere. As to Ireland's position, I think I have made it very clear that, along with the rest of the Twelve, including France which Deputy De Rossa singled out, we have throughout the crisis engaged in exceptional intensive activity to try to promote a peaceful resolution. It was not for the want of trying on our part and on the part of a large number of the members of the international community and prominent personalities that this, regrettably, was not possible.

I should make the point to Deputy De Rossa that in order to promote a peaceful resolution diplomatic channels are needed. It is notable that no country, not even those at present engaged in military action against Iraq, has as of now broken off diplomatic relations with that country. What is at stake in the Gulf is extremely important for all of us. Either brutal aggression is seen to thrive or the international system is able to enforce its view that such behaviour can no longer be tolerated, as it should never have been tolerated. I repeat that the stakes for small countries are particularly important which is why the Government keep quite clearly in view the source of the crisis we have been talking about. It lies in Baghdad.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 122; Níl, 24.

Tá

Ahearn, Therese.
Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Allen, Bernard.
Aylward, Liam.
Barnes, Monica.
Barrett, Michael.
Barrett, Seán.
Belton, Louis J.
Boylan, Andrew.
Bradford, Paul.
Brady, Gerard.
Connolly, Ger.
Connor, John.
Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
Cotter, Bill.
Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
Cowen, Brian.
Creed, Michael.
Crowley, Frank.
Cullimore, Séamus.
Currie, Austin.
Daly, Brendan.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Davern, Noel.
Deasy, Austin.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
de Valera, Síle.
Doyle, Joe.
Dukes, Alan.
Durkan, Bernard.
Ellis, John.
Enright, Thomas W.
Fahey, Frank.
Farrelly, John V.
Finucane, Michael.
FitzGerald, Garret.
FitzGerald, Liam Joseph.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flaherty, Mary.
Flanagan, Charles.
Flood, Chris.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Foxe, Tom.
Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
Harney, Mary.
Harte, Paddy.
Haughey, Charles J.
Higgins, Jim.
Hillery, Brian.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelly, Laurence.
Kenneally, Brendan.
Kenny, Enda.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael P.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Brennan, Séamus.
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Browne, John (Wexford).
Bruton, John.
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Callely, Ivor.
Carey, Donal.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Collins, Gerard.
Kitt, Tom.
Lawlor, Liam.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Leyden, Terry.
Lyons, Denis.
Martin, Micheál.
McCormack, Pádraic.
McCreevy, Charlie.
McDaid, Jim.
McEllistrim, Tom.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Paul.
Mitchell, Gay.
Mitchell, Jim.
Molloy, Robert.
Morley, P.J.
Nolan, M.J.
Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Desmond J.
O'Rourke, Mary.
O'Toole, Martin Joe.
Owen, Nora.
Power, Seán.
Quill, Máirín.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Roche, Dick.
Shatter, Alan.
Smith, Michael.
Stafford, John.
Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.
Wilson, John P.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.
Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Bell, Michael.
Byrne, Eric.
De Rossa, Proinsias.
Ferris, Michael.
Garland, Roger.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Gregory, Tony.
Higgins, Michael D.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kemmy, Jim.
McCartan, Pat.
Mac Giolla, Tomás.
Moynihan, Michael.
O'Shea, Brian.
O'Sullivan, Gerry.
O'Sullivan, Toddy.
Pattison, Séamus.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Ryan, Seán.
Sherlock, Joe.
Spring, Dick.
Stagg, Emmet.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Flanagan: Níl, Deputies Howlin and McCartan.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputy Proinsias De Rossa and other Deputies cannot be moved. The question, therefore, is that the motion be agreed.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 122; Níl, 23.

Tá

Ahearn, Therese.
Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Allen, Bernard.
Aylward, Liam.
Barnes, Monica.
Barrett, Michael.
Barrett, Seán.
Belton, Louis J.
Boylan, Andrew.
Bradford, Paul.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Brennan, Séamus.
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Browne, John (Wexford).
Bruton, John.
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Callely, Ivor.
Carey, Donal.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Collins, Gerard.
Connolly, Ger.
Connor, John.
Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
Cotter, Bill.
Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
Cowen, Brian.
Creed, Michael.
Crowley, Frank.
Cullimore, Séamus.
Currie, Austin.
Daly, Brendan.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Davern, Noel.
Deasy, Austin.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
de Valera, Síle.
Doyle, Joe.
Dukes, Alan.
Durkan, Bernard.
Ellis, John.
Enright, Thomas W.
Fahey, Frank.
Farrelly, John V.
O'Malley, Desmond J.
O'Rourke, Mary.
O'Toole, Martin Joe.
Owen, Nora.
Power, Seán.
Quill, Máirín.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Roche, Dick.
Shatter, Alan.
Smith, Michael.
Finucane, Michael.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flaherty, Mary.
Flanagan, Charles.
Flood, Chris.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Foxe, Tom.
Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
Harney, Mary.
Harte, Paddy.
Haughey, Charles J.
Higgins, Jim.
Hillery, Brian.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelly, Laurence.
Kenneally, Brendan.
Kenny, Enda.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.
Lawlor, Liam.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Leyden, Terry.
Lyons, Denis.
Martin, Micheál.
McCormack, Pádraic.
McCreevy, Charlie.
McDaid, Jim.
McEllistrim, Tom.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Paul.
Mitchell, Gay.
Mitchell, Jim.
Molloy, Robert.
Morley, P.J.
Nolan, M.J.
Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
Stafford, John.
Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.
Wilson, John P.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.
Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Bell, Michael.
Byrne, Eric.
De Rossa, Proinsias.
Ferris, Michael.
Garland, Roger.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Gregory, Tony.
Higgins, Michael D.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kemmy, Jim.
McCartan, Pat.
Mac Giolla, Tomás.
Moynihan, Michael.
O'Shea, Brian.
O'Sullivan, Gerry.
Pattison, Séamus.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Ryan, Seán.
Sherlock, Joe.
Spring, Dick.
Stagg, Emmet.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Flanagan: Níl, Deputies Howlin and McCartan.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

In pursuance of the resolution of the Dáil of 19 December 1990 the House stands adjourned until 12 noon on Wednesday, 30 January 1991.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 12 noon on Wednesday, 30 January 1991.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 18 Jan 1991