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.