Now that a ceasefire on the ground has been agreed and progress is being made towards a definitive settlement of the crisis in the Gulf, it is timely for us to reflect on the nature of what was the most serious international crisis since the end of the Second World War. It is also appropriate that I should today set out again clearly the approach of the Government to this crisis particularly since there have been attempts to distort the position we have adopted and to confuse the issues involved.
It is fair to say that all Members of this House and indeed the Irish people generally will have welcomed with considerable relief the liberation of Kuwait and the ceasefire in the Gulf War following Iraq's acceptance of the resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council. The Government would have preferred that the Iraqi leadership had taken this course much earlier and spared their country and their people the destruction and suffering which are now all too apparent. The option of a peaceful settlement to the Gulf crisis was always in the hands of the Iraqi authorities. A long pause for reflection was available to the Iraqi Government between the adoption of Resolution 678 by the Security Council on 29 November last and the deadline set by that resolution, 15 January, after which all necessary means were authorised to bring about Iraqi compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council. Even after that date, and before the announcement of ground hostilities in February, Iraq could have reduced the destruction and suffering by signalling its willingness to meet its obligations under international law. We have seen that, even when it had become clear that Iraq could not prevail against the international coalition against it authorised by the Security Council, the Iraqi leadership still persisted in bargaining about its international obligations.
The very genesis of the Gulf Crisis lies in an Iraqi decision, the decision to overrun Kuwait on 2 August last year and then to purport to annex it. As I said on 18 January, it is necessary to keep this central point clearly in mind. For the first time since 1945, when the United Nations Charter was adopted as an international code of law to govern relations between states, a member state of the United Nations had simply swallowed another by force and brought its people into subjection. This point is worth repeating today, because from some of the comments that have been made since we would almost think that the blame lay elsewhere. It has to be clear that Iraq was the violator of international law and that the United Nations had determined this and set out the demands which Iraq had to fulfil.
Once the aggression had taken place it was necessary to confront the aggressor. This was done in an unprecedented and impressive display of unity by the international community acting through the United Nations. Under Article 24 of the UN Charter the member states confer the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security on the Security Council. All member states under Article 25 agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Council in accordance with the Charter. Action by the United Nations afforded the best chance of convincing Iraq of the degree of international opposition to its actions and of persuading it to reconsider.
But let us be clear on the type of action that can be taken by the UN. It is stated in Article 1 of the Charter of the organisation that in order to maintain peace and security the United Nations shall "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace". There are three fundamental ways in which the UN can seek to reverse an aggression such as that of 2 August last year.
The first is by moral suasion, by seeking to bring home to the aggressor that his action is unacceptable to the international community and that it will not be tolerated. Thus the first step taken by the UN Security Council on the same day as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was to adopt Resolution 660. Under the terms of this resolution the Security Council: condemned the invasion; demanded that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the position in which they were located on 1 August 1990; called upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supported all efforts in this regard and especially those of the Arab states and decided to meet again as necessary to consider further steps to ensure compliance with the resolutions.
Iraq's reaction to this resolution was to ignore it. It is an unfortunate fact of life that perpetrators of aggression are not often swayed by appeals to relent. Iraq's violation of the Charter in invading Kuwait was compounded by its violation of its obligations under Article 25 to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
The second step open to the United Nations when faced with aggression and the failure of appeals is to consider what collective measures can be taken. Under Article 41 of the Charter the Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions. The Security Council duly decided on 6 August to adopt a further Resolution, 661, which approved a trade and financial embargo against Iraq with the exclusion of medical supplies and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs. It was felt that Iraq's geographical position, the country's almost total dependence on one commodity, oil, and the extent of the international solidarity would have permitted an effective sanctions regime which would have led Iraq inexorably to the conclusion that its policy regarding Kuwait could not be sustained. In fact rather than pausing to reflect, the Iraqi leadership were even more defiant and announced two days later, on 8 August, that Kuwait had now ceased to exist and would henceforth be regarded as the 19th Province of Iraq. Over the following three months another ten resolutions, covering many of the abuses arising from the Iraqi action, such as the holding of hostages and their use as human shields, were adopted by the Security Council, culminating in Resolution 678 on 29 November.
Resolution 678 marked the move to the third stage of action that is open to the UN when confronted with a breach of the peace and an act of aggression. That stage is the use of military force to compel the aggressor to submit to the will of the international community. As I pointed out on 18 January, Resolution 678 authorised member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to uphold and implement previous resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area unless Iraq fully implemented these resolutions on or before 15 January. I also emphasised to the House that this was not a decision on military action of the kind which can be taken by the Security Council itself under Article 42. What had happened was that the Council authorised the use of all necessary means, including the use of force. Those countries who took military action were therefore doing so with the full authority of the Council. Resolution 678 was adopted validly and in due form: arguments which suggest that the actions undertaken in pursuance of Resolution 678 were in some way not in conformity with the provisions of the Charter or were lacking in legality are very wide of the mark.
These three approaches, moral suasion, collective measures short of force and the use of military force itself are of course in no way mutually exclusive. The sanctions imposed on Iraq operated during the war and are still in place. Appeals to Iraq continued throughout the Gulf crisis even after the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed in adopting Resolution 678 the Security Council permitted, as I have mentioned, a six week "pause of goodwill" which saw a period of the most intensive diplomatic activity to persuade the Iraqi leaders to take the necessary steps to avoid disaster. Deputies will also recall the strenuous efforts made by President Gorbachev immediately before and even during the ground offensive. A very great deal of effort was exerted in the interests of peace with, unfortunately, disappointingly little return.
Iraq's approach up to the time it finally indicated its intention fully to comply with its UN obligations was to bargain on these. Successive announcements from Baghdad indicated a willingness to comply with some elements of Security Council Resolutions but not with others. Proposals were made that some resolutions should be wiped from the board on the basis of Iraqi agreement to cease hostilities. At one stage, Iraq was even refusing to acknowledge and recognise the State of Kuwait as other than a geographical entity. Against this background, arguments about a notional Iraqi willingness to comply with its international obligations without the ever-present and palpable sanction of military means lose their force. In the final analysis, and regrettably for the people of Kuwait and Iraq itself, it was the military catastrophe which befell Iraq's armed forces that proved the catalyst in bringing about the change of mind in Baghdad. It is for this reason that the Government statement of 28 February indicated that it was clearly evident, tragically, that only the resort to force as authorised by Resolution 678 was capable of securing full compliance with the UN Resolutions.
As to the Government's position on the crisis, from the very beginning we placed our faith in the United Nations as the instrument with which the Iraqi aggression should be tackled and reversed. As a UN member state of good standing we strongly supported the measures taken by the Security Council even when they were harmful to our own particular economic interests, as were the economic sanctions imposed by Resolution 661. They had, of course, a much more serious effect on the economies of other member states of the UN.
As I pointed out in the Dáil on 18 January, we were very conscious of our obligations under the Charter and of the specific request made by the Security Council to all states to provide appropriate support for those countries acting in pursuance of Resolution 678. The provision of facilities at Shannon came within the terms of appropriate support.
We co-operated closely with our partners in the Twelve in efforts to secure an outcome to the crisis without the necessity of a recourse to military action. As a member of the EC Troika in the second half of last year our role was a particularly active one. The European Community was intensively active in the run-up to the outbreak of hostilities, its objective being to pursue every possible avenue in order to avert the outbreak. Even on the eve of 15 January, a last-minute effort was made by France, with the support of a number of other member states of the Community, including Ireland, to secure Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait without the use of military force. A peaceful outcome, however, was dependent not only on the Twelve. It required a willingness on the part of the Iraqi leadership to respond positively. Regrettably that willingness was not there.
It became quite clear that Iraq was not prepared to respond to anything short of military force. That force, however, was on hand and had the sanction of the Security Council. While regretting that it had to come to the use of this force, therefore, the Government were quite clear where they stood in regard to it. For this reason, in their statement on 24 February following the commencement of the ground offensive, they stated that at that grave hour Ireland and its partners in the Community were "on the side of the international coalition in upholding and implementing the UN Resolutions". The Government have never been in any doubt where they stood throughout this crisis. When I addressed this House on 18 January I made it absolutely clear that "we are in no doubt on which side right lies in this conflict and in no doubt who has been the aggressor".
When the ceasefire was announced I sent a message of congratulations to President Bush on the success of the action he undertook in conjunction with the other members of the coalition, on behalf of the whole international community, to uphold the rule of international law and to secure full implementation of decisions of the UN Security Council in relation to Kuwait. I repeat, action undertaken on behalf of the whole international community.
Those who indulge in criticism of the specific arrangements made in this instance to ensure implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council are obliged to answer the question how otherwise the result we have seen could be achieved. The fact of the matter is that the machinery available to the UN allowed no alternative. The provisions of the Charter on military forces of the Security Council proper have never been implemented and could not have been put together with the necessary dispatch to meet the crisis at hand. Anyone who has seen the evidence of Iraqi behaviour to the people of Kuwait and who is a witness even today of the State vandalism committed in that country by setting fire to all its oil wells, would take a great deal of responsibility on himself or herself by arguing for more time to be made available to enable Iraq to comply with its obligations.
The challenge posed from the outset was a particularly serious one. Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world. Its array of weaponry was among the most modern in the world. Its leadership had shown on previous occasions that it had no scruples about using its arsenal, including such a horrendous weapon as poison gas, even against its own people. It was, of course, short-sighted of the countries which supplied Iraq with such armaments to imagine that they would only be used for defensive purposes. But when Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August and continued to defy world opinion in the the months which followed, what became the issue was the danger which Iraqi aggression posed and how this aggression could be reversed.
At such a time I and my colleagues in Government were glad to see the effective assembly of a force authorised by the Security Council. It is alarming to think what might have been the outcome and the consequences for world peace of this crisis had this force not been assembled with such efficiency. Let us be clear that the role played was one of leadership and this leadership was provided by the US Administration under President Bush. Kuwait cried out for assistance in the face of aggression and nations throughout the world responded, from North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, the Antipodes and the Arab world itself. If ever there was an action which in terms of participation and in terms of support amounted to action by the United Nations, then surely this was it. Never before have nations been so truly united in the pursuit of justice. As President Bush said in his address to the American people, "This is a victory for the United Nations, for all mankind, for the rule of law and for what is right".
In their statement of 28 February, the Government expressed the hope that the effective collective action on this occasion would help deter future aggression and contribute to the establishment of a new international order, in which every state can live at peace with its neighbours and war becomes a thing of the past. The international community must now work with the countries of the region for a rapid return to normality so that reconstruction can take place, and for the establishment of a satisfactory framework for peace and security in their region. Ireland is ready to work with our partners in the Community in providing humanitarian or other assistance to the countries that have suffered in the war. The Community has already discussed the outlines for its action in the region at ministerial level. The Troika has been mandated to carry out a series of meetings so that we can inform ourselves of the latest thinking of those countries that are most directly involved. It is essential that there should be no attempt to impose some sort of blueprint from outside. A special European Summit is being called by the Presidency for next month to discuss the situation in the Gulf.
As far as supplies of armaments are concerned, I hope that the use that Iraq made of its huge and sophisticated arsenal has convinced many of the countries of the industrialised West who have been involved in this trade of its folly. Statistics show that 90 per cent of the international trade in arms is accounted for by the five permanent number of them realise that an uninhibited trade in arms will not contribute to international peace and security and are, accordingly, ready to take steps to limit this trade, at least in weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery systems. The UN has to get involved in dealing with this issue and Canada has put forward some interesting proposals in this regard. We will be working with our partners in the Twelve in ensuring that the European Community makes an effective contribution to stemming this death-promoting traffic.
The Government have already provided bilateral assistance to some of the countries of the region which have been most directly affected by the Gulf war and we have made efforts to ease the plight of refugees. We have committed a sum of £3 million this year in respect of food aid for Egypt and to ease its balance of payments difficulties arising out of the economic disruption caused by the sanctions imposed following the invasion of Kuwait. A further £0.5 million has been provided for developing countries, in particular the priority countries for Ireland's Development Programme. Half of this will be spent on food aid for the Sudan which is facing severe famine conditions at present. A small grant is being given to the Irish Council for Overseas Students to ensure that students from the Gulf area can continue their third level studies in Ireland despite the economic hardship which the Gulf crisis has imposed on them and their families. Last year we contributed a total of £158,000 to assist in the repatriation of refugees fleeing into Jordan from Iraq and Kuwait. These contributions were channelled through the European Community, the Red Cross, Concern and Trocaire. We are also making an additional contribution of £25,000 to the Red Cross in respect of the temporary transit camps which they have set up in Iran to handle refugees from Iraq. We are closely following the situation in Iraq which has resulted from the war. There is an urgent need to address the humanitarian problems of the people of Iraq; the full extent of these are still being assessed by the relevant international organisations. We will consider the situation further in the light of the Ahtisaari mission to the area and requests from the UN agencies.
In the event of the establishment of a UN observer or peacekeeping contingent we have signalled our readiness to contribute to any such force. Any peacekeeping operation should, of course, not be seen in isolation but should complement the peacemaking process. We have already several hundred members of our Defence Forces serving in the Middle East region. They are there because of the difficulties involved in securing a settlement to the political problems of the region.
Peacekeeping operations are not designed to solve political problems between states. These have to be addressed by the States concerned with the encouragement and help of others. Now that the UN has shown itself to be effective in the Gulf crisis, it must display the same persistence and determination in the search for a settlement to the broader problems of the Middle East.
Together with our partners in the Twelve we are studying what type of contribution we can make to the overall peace process. The Troika consisting of the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, Italy and the Netherlands visited the Middle East last week for discussions with a number of key countries in the region. Deputies will be aware of the contacts made in the area this week by the US Secretary of State, James Baker.
It is the Community's intention to maintain the closest of contact with the US and with the USSR. The lessons of the advantages of close co-operation which were learned from the Gulf crisis should not be forgotten now that the guns have fallen silent. Ireland will be intent on making this point. We will be active in promoting the role of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter in preventing future acts of aggression and, along with our partners in the Community, in actively promoting an acceptable final resolution of the situation in the Gulf as well as a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Above all, the Twelve will be urging a solution to the tragedy of the Palestinian people, still after over 40 years in search of the realisation of their legitimate rights — a homeland. Security Council Resolutions are valid here just as they were in the case of Kuwait and it is high time that Resolutions 242 and 338 found concrete expression and that on that basis provision can be made for the security of all states in the region, including Israel, and for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.