Vol. 487 No. 5
3 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the current Iraqi crisis; and whether he supports the American and British views that the UN inspectors must be given unfettered access to all sites in Iraq as part of their essential mission to locate and destroy stocks of weapons of mass destruction. [ 4495/9]
4 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the EU has a common policy position in relation to impending military conflict in Iraq; and if so, if he will outline to Dáil Éireann the Irish contribution to framing this policy. [4498/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
Ireland has been working closely with our EU partners in support of efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis arising from Iraq's failure to comply fully with relevant Security Council resolutions on the work of the UN Special Commission, UNSCOM.
The action by the Iraqi Government in blocking the work of UNSCOM is in clear violation of the terms of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and, in the view of the Irish Government, is unacceptable. The Government calls on Iraq to respect fully its international obligations as stipulated in the resolutions of the Security Council and to co-operate with the work of the commission.
The system of locating and destroying weapons of mass destruction was authorised by the Security Council which established UNSCOM by resolution 687 of 1991. It has seen some successes. However, there still remains, in UNSCOM's view, a quantitatively small but qualitatively still significant number of items unaccounted for in Iraq. UN inspectors must be given unfettered access to all sites in Iraq as part of their essential mission to locate and destroy stocks of weapons of mass destruction.
It is the Government's firm view that the best means of resolving the current impasse should be found under the aegis of the Security Council through diplomatic means. The Government fully supports the efforts currently under way and encourages those promoting them to continue their endeavours. It also strongly supports the efforts of the Secretary General to this end.
At a recent informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Panama, I urged strong support for the continuing diplomatic efforts, particularly of EU member states, and of the UN Secretary General, to solve the crisis with an outcome which requires that any diplomatic solution would allow UNSCOM to resume effective inspections. This was agreed. Ministers called upon Iraq to comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and, in particular, to permit UNSCOM to carry out effective inspections of sites where they suspect that chemical and biological weapons and vital information are concealed.
I understand the UN Security Council is currently involved in efforts to clarify possible arrangements for the inspection of presidential sites and palaces which would meet the requirements of the Security Council while having due regard to Iraq's concerns about its sovereignty.
I note in this context that the Secretary General of the United Nations had an intensive series of discussions with the Permanent Members of the Council about this. He has announced that, following a briefing of the Security Council, he is prepared to proceed to Baghdad before the weekend. The Government unreservedly supports his efforts and hopes he will be able to find a solution which will enable the Iraqi Government to meet its obligations.
I very much hope the current diplomatic efforts will prove successful and the need to consider further measures will be obviated. However, if material breach of relevant Security Council resolutions is established and not remedied, the possibility of further action, including military strikes, remains. The Government believes any such action should derive its authority directly from decisions of the Security Council.
We must also be mindful of the humanitarian dimension. At the Panama meeting I also raised the issue of the plight of the Iraqi people and urged that the Security Council take rapid and positive action on the proposals laid before it by the UN Secretary General regarding a significant alleviation of the distress currently being suffered by the Iraqi people through an improvement of the current "food for oil" arrangement.
Ireland has also made its views known bilaterally to its partners. The matter will be addressed again by the General Affairs Council next Monday.
Will the Minister agree that the United States Administration has a long way to go in convincing friendly nations of the appropriateness of its proposals? To paraphrase a distinguished Irish diplomat, many countries do not want to get caught between Iraq and a hard place. I hope this is not too frivolous a phrase to use in such serious circumstances. Will he also agree that there has been a gross failure by international bodies? The General Affairs Council has barely been able to agree to meet, yet the Presidency of the European Union has taken off in one direction with the United States.
Would the Minister agree that the powers the Security Council gave itself to strip search Iraq are greater than any powers it is likely to have again? If it cannot make Iraq comply the question can reasonably be asked if it can hope to deter others from following Iraq's nose thumbing exercise. Is this not a gross failure of the UN, the Security Council, the EU and other such international organisations? To some extent one can understand why the US is leading the effort. Other organisations are failing to deal with those who are stockpiling biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
Armaments are an obscenity whether they are conventional or of the type possessed by Saddam Hussein. When EU Foreign Ministers met on the margins of the Rio summit in Panama we spent 90 minutes discussing this matter. I made a trenchant intervention on two fronts. I stressed, first, the need to continue to urge diplomacy on those who are anxious to get on with the business and, second, the need to take account of the fact that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who, nevertheless, presides over men, women and children who deserve the right to life as long as they are freely on this earth. They have been subjected to the most terrible sanctions to which we are a party by virtue of our obligations under the UN resolution. We recently saw horrific television pictures from hospitals in Baghdad, particularly those depicting starving children. Whether or not this is propaganda, a starving child is a starving child. I had the opportunity of visiting Baghdad just before the last Iraqi war. I found the Iraqis to be honest, decent and good people who wished to live in peace. However, they are presided over by a lunatic.
The longer the diplomatic route is followed the better. We in this House believe that the preservation of life should be uppermost in the objectives we seek to achieve. All we can do is hope that Kofi Annan's mission will persuade Saddam Hussein and his generals that, in the name of Allah or whoever, they should think again before going to war with one of the strongest war machines which has ever graced, if that is the word, the earth. We want to achieve a resolution to the problem and help to prevent the destruction of life in Iraq.
I share the concerns for the ordinary people of Iraq who will be the ultimate victims if there is an armed conflict. The Minister mentioned that there was an informal meeting on the margins of the Rio meeting. In his original reply, he stated that the EU agreed a position. Is this an informal position? Is there an EU position on the pending conflict or does the Minister hope that the EU will adopt a common position at next Monday's meeting? This is extremely important in the context of the potential for conflict. I wish the UN Secretary General well on his mission. It is an extremely arduous undertaking but we must find a diplomatic solution which saves face, protects the world from Saddam Hussein's stockpile of weapons and allows the UN mission to complete its work unhindered.
I wish to refer to Britain's role and its responsibilities consistent and coincidental with its Presidency of the EU. Iraq is considered from time to time by EU Foreign Ministers but it has not recently been the subject of co-ordination. There is no common position. I will attend the General Affairs Council meeting next Monday. We must remember that we are a small nation. However, we have an important role to play by virtue of our being equal to the strongest of our partners in the EU. We still have the opportunity to voice our concerns and I will do so at the meeting on Monday.
The position has been the subject of Security Council resolutions which are binding on all member states. Therefore, by definition all members of the EU are bound by the UN resolution. Britain, which currently holds the EU Presidency, is also one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. As such, and like France, it has to exercise its prerogative to take a national stance as regards the implementation of the appropriate resolution.
Since assuming the Presidency, Britain has chaired the EU meetings at which the evolving situation has been discussed. EU Foreign Ministers met on the margins of the Rio group in Panama on 13 February. That meeting was chaired evenhandedly by the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. The General Affairs Council will return to the subject next Monday. I will report on the meeting to the House and the Deputies who raised this question. I will also send a report to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Deputy De Rossa wishes to ask a question but these questions are taken in priority time.
Priority question time finishes at 2. 50 p.m.
It does but these questions were taken before 2.50 p.m. They were taken in priority time.
So we are now in free time.
Yes, but they are still priority questions once they are taken within the time for priority questions.
If the question was taken until 3.30 p.m. would I still not be permitted——
The question will not continue until 3.30 p.m.
That is not fair.
The questions commenced priority time and are priority questions. The next question, which is a priority question, will commence in ordinary time and will be taken as an ordinary question.
There are questions I would like to put——
I can do nothing about that. I must ensure the rules of the House and the procedures concerning questions are complied with. I cannot change the rules.
I am particularly keen to ask——
The Deputy may not do so under current rules. The Chair's hands are tied on the matter. I cannot vary the rules to suit a particular Deputy.
I wish to explain why the question is important. It concerns whether the US has a mandate to launch a war against Iraq under——
The Deputy may not ask a question. He should take up the matter with the committee which deals with Dáil reform if he wishes to rectify the situation. The Chair's hands are tied. The Deputy is completely out of order. I am ensuring the rules are applied.
We make our own rules.
The Deputy should resume his seat. The Chair is ensuring the rules laid down by Members are complied with. I call on the Deputy to resume his seat. He is totally out of order. He should remain silent on the matter.
That will be the day.
