Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 2002

Vol. 556 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Foreign Conflicts.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I appreciate being selected to raise this important matter this evening. I hope the Dáil will be given an opportunity to consider the matter in detail before Ireland casts its vote at the UN Security Council on the proposed resolution or resolutions on the situation in Iraq.

Speaking in the House on 23 October I set out Fine Gael's position for the record. I spoke about the fact that unilateral action was not acceptable and about the need for independent verification by Ireland of claims made in the Blair dossier and by the American Administration. I also set out sources where I believed we would find the possibility of such independent verification. I said we should stand up to terrorism, but also that we should tackle injustice in the world. I said we should avoid knee-jerk anti-Americanism, and I repeat that here this evening. I also said it was time to assess Irish security needs. I feel I am a lone voice in stating that we are not part of any alliance or that we have not provided the Irish Defence Forces with the necessary equipment to defend Ireland even from an attack of which we might be given notice.

I said that we and our partners in the European Union should assess the contribution the European Union could make to rebuilding a free and democratic Iraq. I also said that we, as parliamentarians, must take our responsibilities in these matters more seriously. It is not sufficient for us to see which way the Government hops so that we can react to events by either criticising them or adopting a high moral tone and sitting in judgment of others. The House must be as informed as possible about developments so we can give the Government guidance and, if necessary, authorise decisions to be taken at the Security Council, and possibly at home, which are based on principles.

I raise this issue again this evening and I will continue to seek to raise it under Standing Order 31. Following the elections to the Senate and the House of Representatives and other elections in the United States, the Republicans have a majority in both Houses as well as a Republican President. The situation is hardening at the UN Security Council. I was struck during the week by an article by Salman Rushdie in the Asian version of the International Herald Tribune in which he made a good case against the Iraqi regime. He did not do so for the reasons put forward by the British and American Administrations, but for what Saddam Hussein has done against his own people. I do not have sympathy or a flag to raise for Saddam Hussein or any other tinpot dictator – the sooner he is gone, the better. I have not uttered anti-American words during debates in the House and I have not said anything irrational about NATO. I have not been afraid to advocate that the State should take its responsibilities on security and defence more seriously.

There is an important point in all the cases I have put forward, namely, that constitutionally Dáil Éireann has the function of declaring war. The Government does not have a right to declare war and our Ambassador to the UN Security Council does not have the power to declare war. The House must authorise whatever actions are taken by the Government and our Ambassador to the UN Security Council, and those actions may result in war. We must learn from the defeat of the first Nice treaty. People will not accept that the Government, the Minister or the Ambassador knows best. People want to be informed. The Minister must put before the House the basis on which he has sought to verify the claims being made by those who want tough action taken against Iraq. He should persuade the House about the legal and moral case for any decision he or the Government might instruct our Ambassador to take at the United Nations.

I am not seeking to trip or embarrass the Minister or the Government or to make political capital. I believe in these issues about which I have been consistent. This is an important principle which will not go away and my party will not desist from prosecuting. It is a central and important constitutional, moral and legal point that the Minister and the Government explain to the House and, if necessary, seek the approval of the House for any instruction they might give to our Ambassador at the United Nations Security Council to vote for action which will result in war. These are my concerns and I will return to them because the issues to which they relate are imminent. I hope the Minister will take them to heart.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. There is no question of any action being taken by Ireland in the coming days or weeks which would allow war to take place. We are trying to avert war. We are using the multilateral forum of the United Nations to find a diplomatic and political solution to an imminent threat to peace and security as defined by the Security Council, the body responsible for this matter in international law. While I understand the passion with which the Deputy makes his point, it is important to emphasise that there is no question of the Government giving anybody the means to prosecute a war. We are trying to avert circumstances in which pre-emptive, unilateral or other action is taken.

The draft resolution under consideration in the Security Council is the latest in a series of resolutions to address the situation arising from Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in 1990, followed by its refusal to meet its disarmament obligations. Ireland strongly supports the system of collective international security enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The UN is the central forum for discussion and action on issues of global importance.

The Security Council has primary responsibility under the UN Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is for the Security Council to determine whether there exists a threat to the peace and then to decide what is to be done to remove the threat. Ireland shares in the growing international consensus that the Iraqi regime poses a potential threat to regional security. Iraq has so far consistently failed to meet its obligations under international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

Nevertheless, we continue to believe that diplomatic means offer the best hope of resolving the crisis. We and other like-minded countries on the Security Council are concerned to ensure there will be no recourse to force, provided Iraq complies with its obligations under the charter. Every possible effort should be made to avoid the use of military force, which should remain a matter of last resort. All our efforts at the Security Council and in other contexts are aimed at a peaceful solution. It is clear, however, that a time is approaching when continued Iraqi defiance, if Baghdad should unwisely persist with its current course, will compel the Security Council to examine all the options available to it under the charter. We hope this can be avoided.

The current resolution, as it is shaping up now, offers the best possibility of securing Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations and avoiding the use of force. The draft resolution before the Security Council – I stress it is still a draft resolution – is the result of almost two months of painstaking negotiations within the council. It recalls the council's previous resolutions and Iraq's record of non-compliance. It recognises the threat which Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to international peace and security. It states the Security Council's determination to secure full compliance with its decisions.

In the early operative paragraphs, the Security Council decides, not for the first time, that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations, but decides to give it a final opportunity to comply. It also sets up an enhanced inspection regime. It requires Iraq to make a complete declaration of all aspects of its weapons programmes within 30 days and decides that false statements or omissions and failure to comply and co-operate shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations. This breach would be reported to the Security Council for assessment. It is important to note that it is the council which will carry out the assessment.

The resolution provides that Iraq will give UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency unconditional access to all weapons sites, including presidential sites. The resolution goes on to strengthen the arms inspectors' mandate. Three key paragraphs set out what will happen if Iraq interferes with inspection activities or fails to comply with its disarmament obligations. In this case, the heads of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will report immediately to the Security Council. Upon receipt of such a report, the Security Council will convene immediately in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to restore international peace and security. The resolution recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

What these paragraphs mean is that there is no automatic trigger for military action. Instead, there will be a two stage process in which, first, a material breach or failure to comply and co-operate would be reported to the Security Council. In a second stage, the council would consider the situation and any further steps to be taken. This could include the use of force, as is made clear by the paragraph warning of serious consequences. However, the purpose of the resolution is to bring about Iraqi co-operation with arms inspections, not to mandate a war.

Ireland and other like-minded countries on the Security Council are concerned to ensure there will be no recourse to force, provided Iraq complies with its obligations under the charter. This is all Iraq has to do to bring both this crisis and economic sanctions to an end. Ireland does not agree with the view that war is inevitable. On the contrary, we believe military action can be averted by means of a strong Security Council resolution adopted with the widest possible consensus, which will send the arms inspectors back into Iraq with a reinforced mandate to complete their work. Our hope must be that Iraq will at last end its defiance of the international community and co-operate fully in the interest of securing peace and security.