Whatever differences this debate has thrown up, and there have been many, I am sure everyone in the House welcomes, as I do, the end of the war and the liberation of Kuwait. Iraq's annexation of Kuwait is no more; Kuwait has returned to the family of nations.
As I said when I spoke here on 18 January, the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait made us all aware that, after the end of the Cold War, the world still remains a dangerous place. That still remains true, even if, happily, the Iraqi action of 2 August last has been reversed. The international community will need to avail of a very rare opportunity and redouble their efforts to make the world a safer place.
It is now time to look to the future. The Middle East region, which includes the Gulf, is vexed by a number of problems which call for urgent international attention. One of the most important issues which will now have to be addressed in the short term by the world community in the aftermath of the Gulf crisis is the need to control the supply of arms to countries in a region of tension like that of the Middle East. It is already clear that the danger posed by the aggression of 2 August was magnified by the military capacity of Iraq. Particularly worrying was Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and the indications that Iraq's leadership had no compunction about their use, even against their own people, in flagrant violation of international law. Ireland very much favours the elimination of such weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East and the reduction of the stockpiles of conventional arms already there.
Disarmament in an area where there is deep distrust and suspicion between the protagonists will not be easy to achieve. But it is necessary to make every effort to convince the countries concerned that genuine peace and security has its foundation in the pursuit of dialogue and accommodation not in numbers of tanks or planes. Indeed it is probably true that military stockpiles may even be themselves an obstacle to peace in that they can provide an illusion of security; a false sense of security is apt to affect the perception of the urgency of the search for peace and the need for compromise.
Following this crisis the other tasks facing the international community are daunting — tasks of reconstruction, healing, fostering of dialogue, and bringing about a return to normality and stability.
The whole issue of security in the Gulf region is another area which needs to be addressed urgently. It is important in this regard that we should not seek to impose our views from outside as to what structures are appropriate. We must look at the countries of the region in the first instance to produce their own ideas and suggestions. I know Deputies will join me in welcoming many of the ideas contained in the Damascus Declaration which was agreed by the six GCC States, Syria and Egypt on 6 March. These ideas included the establishment of an Arab peace-keeping contingent in the Gulf, a review of arms levels, particularly in relation to weapons of mass destruction in the region and a commitment to closer economic co-operation between the states involved.
There are also, of course, other matters which need to be addressed, including the role of Iraq itself in the region. Ireland strongly believes in full respect for the territorial integrity of Iraq. The seizure of territory and the attempted redrawing of frontiers led to this crisis. We should not permit it to end in the same way. The role of Jordan is, of course, also crucial, and Iran cannot be excluded entirely from any new arrangements if they are to have the chance of lasting success.
The conflict that has just ended was conducted on the basis of 12 Security Council Resolutions. We should remember also Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 which were adopted many years ago, and which provide a framework for a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Twelve and the international community in general are refocusing their attention now on this issue. Resettlement can only be based on a mutual recognition process. Recognition of the right of all the states of the area, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries; recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The tragedy of the Palestinians is that, 43 years after the establishment of the State of Israel, they still look to the concrete realisation of their legitimate rights: a homeland. We hope that recognition can take place between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and its Arab neighbours, with a view to resolving this great complex of issues. These negotiations should take place in the perspective of an international conference to be convened at the appropriate time under the auspices of the United Nations, which would crown the achievement of a lasting peace in this long troubled area.
There is another Security Council Resolution, 425, which awaits implementation. This calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon and for the removal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territory. Yet for many years now — too long — part of Southern Lebanon continues to be regarded by Israel as its security zone, to be controlled by Israeli military forces or their surrogates. We in Ireland have a pressing interest in the area: some 700 of our soldiers have been serving there on rotation for many years as part of UNIFIL, the UN peace-keeping force which makes an essential contribution to the security of the area. Our dearest wish would be that this presence could be made superfluous. A chance to make real progress here once again presents itself. It should be grasped, as should the opportunity to implement fully the Taif agreement so that all foreign forces can be withdrawn from Lebanon and that long suffering country can once again regain its sovereignty, unity and prosperity.
Much has been said here today about the implications of the Gulf crisis for our policy of neutrality. Deputies Higgins, De Rossa and Garland and, from a different point of view, Deputies O'Keeffe and Deasy commented on this. I find this very surprising since the Government have made it clear repeatedly that there are no such implications. What is at issue here is our reaction to an aggression on which I hope no Member of this House is neutral. I hope no Deputy is seriously proposing that we disregard our obligations under the UN Charter to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. In that respect, Deputy Garland seems to live in a completely different world than I do.
On the question of the provision of refuelling facilities at Shannon, a decision was made, with the overwhelming support of this House, to make such facilities available in the event of such a request being made. Once that request was made those facilities were granted, not because Deputy Deasy asked us to do so but because we were asked by the UN and the United States on behalf of the UN. That request was received from a number of states acting in pursuance of Resolution 678. This was a very important gesture of support by this country for the Charter of the United Nations and an acknowledgment of our obligations under that Charter. It did not, as the Government made clear on 18 January last, mean that Ireland would be a participant in any war.
Reference was also made by Deputies to the number of casualties. I want to reiterate that the Government, while expressing relief at the end of hostilities and the liberation of Kuwait, have only the most profound regret at the number of casualties. Perhaps the full extent of Saddam Hussein's aggression which began on 2 August last year will never be known. Depiste the best efforts to minimise civilian casualties and the best efforts of the pilots of the coalition forces, many innocent Iraqi civilians paid the ultimate price.
It is indeed difficult to comprehend how any Government could have permitted such pain to be inflicted on their population. If the Iraqi leadership had entertained any doubts as to the extent to which the coalition forces were prepared to go in their efforts to uphold and implement the United Nations Security Council resolutions surely these were dispelled last January with the launch of the military option. Yet, even then the rhetoric spolk of eventual victory and only held out the promise of the mother of all battles to come.
It has been suggested by Deputies De Rossa, Higgins, Garland and Gilmore that the use of force was too precipitous and that the war in the Gulf may have tarnished the image of the United Nations but I do not believe there was any rush towards the use of military force. The first step was an unequivocal demand for unconditional withdrawal. When there was no response to this economic means were used to try to force a withdrawal, including a mandate for military action to enforce sanctions. It was only when it became apparent that these peaceful means had not proved to be effective in securing an Iraqi withdrawal that the Security Council adopted Resolution 678 which authorised military action to dislodge the aggressor. The six week pause of goodwill gave Iraq sufficient time for a sober reassessment of its options. The military option was truly an option of last resort.
There are those who say that economic sanctions would eventually have worked and in the very long term this may well have proved to be true. However, we should take into account the tremendous suffering that would have been caused for the people of Kuwait and indeed to the ordinary people of Iraq who were Saddam Hussein's choice of frontline troops for the battle. However, as the Government statement of 28 February noted, it was, tragically, clearly evident that only the resort to force as authorised by Resolution 678 was capable of securing full compliance with all United Nations resolutions.
Deputy De Rossa, in saying that he did not condone the actions of Saddam Hussein, implied that there might have been some United States plan in advance to provoke Iraq into invading Kuwait. That is an extraordinary conspiracy theory and the fact remains — this should be repeated over and over again and acknowledged — that Iraq at all times had the power to bring the conflict to an end. Had it opted to do so Saddam Hussein would have saved his people and his county, and indeed the world, much hardship and suffering.
I am sure everyone would agree that the opportunity has now arrived to address all the problems, to discuss the concerns of all the parties involved and to try by peaceful dialogue and reasoned negotiations to find lasting solutions and therefore lasting peace and stability. An end to the sufferings of all people in the region, Jews and Arabs, Christians and Moslems alike, is now long overdue.
The Dáil adjourned at 3.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 1991.