Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 2002

Vol. 557 No. 2

Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Foreign Conflicts.

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

59 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the authority of the Security Council of the United Nations regarding all judgments on compliance with the Charter of the United Nations and its resolutions will be vindicated in all matters relating to the current situation in Iraq; if the Government's position is one of support for the United Nations, opposition to unilateral military action or pre-emptive strikes, and that Irish facilities, including Shannon Airport, will cease to be used for preliminary military purposes in the current or a future situation. [21671/02]

Mr. Cowen

On Friday, 8 November the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 on the situation in Iraq. The Government supported this resolution which we believe offers the most likely means of achieving the three goals we set ourselves, namely, to obtain Iraq's voluntary compliance with its disarmament obligations, to avoid a military conflict and to preserve the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. The resolution represents the outcome of nearly two months of painstaking negotiations in the council in which Ireland played an active part.

The resolution provides for a clear sequential process whereby the inspectors will report back to the council on Iraq's compliance with its obligations under Security Council resolutions. It has decided that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations, but notwithstanding this, has afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. Accordingly, further acts of non-compliance by Iraq will be reported immediately to the Security Council by the arms inspectors. Such reports will then be assessed by the Security Council which will consider the position to decide on any further steps to be taken to bring about full compliance. This was a principal objective of Ireland and other like-minded countries. The agreed text of this resolution contrasts sharply with the original draft which provided that any failure by Iraq to comply would automatically authorise member states to use force.

Ireland is a strong supporter of the United Nations and a strong advocate of the system of collective international security based on the UN Charter. Under the terms of the charter, the UN Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Ireland believes that the integrity of the UN Charter and the prerogatives of the Security Council are fully preserved in the terms of Resolution 1441. For Ireland this is an issue of the most fundamental importance. The Government is pleased that this resolution has brought the issue back to the Security Council.

We have not yet reached the point where military force is inevitable. Nevertheless, it appears that only the convincing threat of what the Security Council has described as serious consequences will persuade the Iraqi regime to cease its ongoing violation of its disarmament responsibilities. This is a cause of deep regret. The Government's clear preference is to see this matter resolved without recourse to the use of force. We will continue to work within the Security Council to this end. However, primary responsibility for ensuring a peaceful outcome rests with the Iraqi authorities.

The Government will continue to review the granting of overflight and landing facilities in the light of developments. There is no intention at this point to revise the current arrangements.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Minister said the Government will continue to review the overflight arrangements at Shannon in the context of current events. The most recently offered justification for the use of Shannon was Resolution 1368 and the international movement against terrorism. As no connection has been established between that movement and the preparations for a strike against Iraq inside or outside Security Council authorisation, why are the arrangements continuing?

Will the Minister tell the House that a pre-emptive strike outside further review by the Security Council would be illegal under international law? Regarding the text to which he refers, namely the Chapter VII resolution that takes the decision, he will be aware that Condoleeza Rice and others have suggested that this allows the United States to interpret what a breach is and to suggest that even a delay in implementation would constitute a major breach. The Minister will be aware that in paragraph 4 of the decision, breach is defined. However, in later parts of it – perhaps that was the merit of the resolution – it allowed anybody to offer any interpretation they wanted. I would be interested in that.

There is another point on which I would like the Minister to be positive. Should compliance be on offer from the Iraqi side, what commitment is there to a review of the sanctions regime, which was at the centre of the previous resolutions, to which the resolution makes reference?

Mr. Cowen

I will deal with the question relating to material breach first. The understanding of the concept of material breach is in accordance with the definition contained in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This defines material breach as: "The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty". Minor errors or omissions would not appear to come within this definition. We expect this definition to be applied in determining whether any further material breach has occurred, should it be necessary to do so.

In the event of any suggestion of material breach under operative paragraph 4, there is a requirement that operative paragraphs 11 and 12 come into operation. In other words, it will still require a report from the inspectors to be brought to the Security Council in making an assessment of a material breach suggested by anyone on the council or any member state. The idea that – as I saw in some commentaries – in the immediate aftermath of the resolution any one state or a number of states could decide on a material breach having occurred thereby providing a trigger mechanism for military force, is not a correct reading of the resolution. The resolution requires that once a material breach is suggested under operative paragraph 4, operative paragraphs 11 and 12 come into play. That requires not just that the suggestion of material breach by a member state, for example, would come back for consideration by the Security Council, but also that in order to have that discussion, there is a requirement for the inspectors to make an assessment on that suggestion of a material breach.

Regarding the question of pre-emptive strikes and their legal validity, the Deputy will be aware there is not an international legal consensus on this. Some states suggest that a mandate for military action exists based on existing resolutions, which have already been passed. If there were any move towards military force, everyone would be best advised to come back to the Security Council for consideration and for the approval of the Security Council in order that it would have the widest possible support and legitimacy in international law. Clearly a resolution such as this, which has brought about an outcome of a 15 to nil vote, involves compromises by everybody in order to reach agreement. Our interpretation of the resolution is that we should come back to the Security Council for such authorisation.

On the question of foreign military aircraft landing at Shannon, that is being done in compliance with the normal orders, the detail of which I have given in innumerable answers to parliamentary questions. We have received no request for the use of military aircraft in the context of Iraq. All usage of Shannon is in respect of the resolutions that have been cited already.

Mr. M. Higgins

Why are they flying to Kuwait for the international campaign against terrorism?

Mr. Cowen

It is the view of the Department and the Government that what we are seeing here is applications being made regarding military aircraft in line with our existing arrangements and we do not see any reason to change them.

Gay Mitchell

Question:

60 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the issues facing Ireland as a result of membership of the UN Security Council. [21765/02]

Mr. Cowen

The issues facing Ireland throughout the two years of our Security Council membership have been challenging and multifaceted. As I have previously told the House, our approach to issues on the council agenda has been based on our traditional commitment to peacekeeping, disarmament, human rights and development co-operation. We have sought to ensure that the human rights of individuals and the humanitarian needs of populations remain central to discussions at the council and have stressed at all times the need to address the root causes of conflict and to respect the principles of international law.

We have sought to take each issue on its merits and work constructively with members of the council and other interested parties to find a solution which is in the broadest possible interest of the international community. Our permanent representative and his staff have made a special effort to stay in close contact with the wider membership of the UN, who were responsible for electing us to the council.

This approach has, in my view, stood us in good stead. It has enabled Ireland to make a very positive and substantive contribution to the work of the council and has brought a fresh perspective and an objective approach to its work which has been welcomed and respected by other member states, in and beyond the council, and by the NGO community.

Two substantial resolutions on Iraq have been adopted by the council in 2002 with active Irish engagement. Resolution 1441, adopted on 8 November, gives Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations through compliance with a reinforced inspections regime. In so doing, it offers the best possible means of avoiding a recourse to military action and preserving the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. Resolution 1409, adopted on 14 May, made changes to the system of economic sanctions against Iraq designed to reduce their impact on the civilian population. This was a major goal for Ireland on the council.

During Ireland's time on the council, 12 resolutions have been passed on the situation in the Middle East, most recently Resolution 1435, which condemned terrorist attacks and expressed support for the work of the quartet. The council is working towards a two state solution and is actively supporting the work of the quartet on a road map leading to a Palestinian state within three years.

Ireland has played its part fully in the serious work in the international fight against terrorism that has been undertaken following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. We have been active in discussions on the reconstruction of Afghanistan where we were successful in seeking to focus the council's attention on the humanitarian situation of the Afghan people.

African issues have been a consistent priority for the Security Council during Ireland's period of membership. Significant progress has been made towards resolving the conflicts in the DRC, Angola, Sierra Leone and Ethiopia-Eritrea, and the challenge now is to consolidate that progress and avoid a slide back into war. Important issues which need to be tackled include the dire humani tarian situation in many conflict countries, grave abuses of human rights, the use of child soldiers, and ongoing insecurity, often as a result of the uncontrolled flow of small arms and light weapons across borders.

The illegal trade in conflict commodities, such as diamonds, is an issue which has been tackled by the Security Council in Sierra Leone, Angola and the DRC, and must be kept under constant review to ensure that conflicts do not become self-financing and self-perpetuating. As chair of the Angola sanctions committee, Ireland made a significant contribution to bringing to an end the military action by UNITA which has caused so much suffering to the people of Angola.

Ireland took a particularly firm position on the situation in Western Sahara, where we have refused to support proposals which could have called into question the right of the Saharwi people to self-determination.

Membership of the council has also afforded us the opportunity to work to improve UN sanctions regimes. While there is no doubt that specifically targeted sanctions play an important role where flagrant breaches of international law occur or there is a threat to international peace, there is a strong balancing objective to ensure that the civilian population of the country against whose government the sanctions are imposed does not suffer.

In the remaining weeks of our term, we will continue to promote Ireland's values and objectives in the pursuit of international peace and security and human rights for all.

Mr. G. Mitchell

What independent assessment has the Minister or his Department carried out of the United States' expressions of concerns about Iraq and of the Blair dossier on Iraq? Will he make such independent assessment available to the House? Will the Minister put the Government's proposed response to any further resolution on Iraq to this House for ratification before our ambassador to the UN is instructed regarding any declaration of war or punitive action against Iraq? I was recently struck by something President Bush said. He said he knew the views of Congress. Does the Minister know the views of the Dáil? Before Ireland participates in any further vote regarding resolutions on Iraq, will the Minister ensure he comes before the House to explain to us the reasoning behind his proposed action and to seek the consent of the House for such action?

Mr. Cowen

In relation to the evidence we have regarding Iraq's access to weapons of mass destruction, a number of assessments, including evidence gathered by previous work carried out by arms inspectors in Iraq, are available. The assessments we have seen, such as that in the British independent report of the Institute of Strategic Studies, paint a disturbing picture. Although they do not present conclusive proof that the threat is immediate and pressing, they re- inforce concerns we already have. It will not be until the arms inspectors return to Iraq that a reliably accurate and independent assessment can be carried out.

Regarding the second matter the Deputy raises, the purpose of Resolution 1441 is to bring about Iraqi co-operation with arms inspections, not to mandate military action. The resolution lays down the procedures which require the question of Iraqi non-compliance to be considered at a further meeting of the Security Council. It would then be up to the Security Council to assess whether Iraq had failed to meet its obligations and to decide on action which might be required. This decision might include authorising the use of force by member states. If any such resolution was passed it would then be up to the Government to decide what action should be taken by Ireland in the light of our relevant constitutional provisions. The Deputy can be assured that the Government will, at all times, abide fully by the Constitution.

Those circumstances do not arise now and the Government is acting under Article 29.4 of the Constitution which provides that the executive power of the State, in connection with its external relations, be exercised by or on the authority of the Government. The clear legal opinion is that, in discharging that executive function in international fora like the UN Security Council – if it were decided circumstances demanded it and the Secretary General felt we had to discharge our responsibilities – a resolution was passed mandating military or other action, that does not amount to a declaration of war by Ireland. This does not relate to Iraq specifically, it is a general principle. It is simply the Security Council using its powers under Article 42 to seek to enforce its resolutions through military action if it so decides. If the Deputy is suggesting that constitutes participation in a war—

Mr. Kenny

If the Minister will give way for a moment. In Britain, the Government consulted the House of Commons and they had a debate on the Blair dossier. The United States takes into account the views of the US Congress. Does the Minister know the views of this House and will he seek to find out what they are before he advises the Government how to exercise its role?

Mr. Cowen

Of course I will. Any time a debate on this or any other issue is required or sought, it can be afforded. That is the way the Parliament operates. However, an important clarifying point is that the Executive plays a role in the Constitution in relation to the exercise of our foreign policy. The Parliament may use its authority for the purpose of having a debate to hold the Government to account and discuss issues but the suggestion of a requirement of prior approval in relation to the passing of such a Security Council resolution does not have a legal basis. The political requirements and views of the Parliament are of course issues to which I would listen and I have no problem with a debate in that context.

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

61 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the procedures used for evaluating the recent list of organisations and individuals adopted by the Council of Foreign Ministers of the European Union as constituting a threat of terrorism; the origin of such a list; the reason, in particular, for the inclusion of a peace negotiator in the conflict in the Philippines (details supplied); and his views on the significance and implications of such a list now constituting a common position within the European Union. [21672/02]

Mr. Cowen

On 28 September 2001, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1373. Resolution 1373 imposes obligations on member states under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and is a comprehensive and specific statement of the international community's determination to deny terrorists the tools of their trade – finance, arms and shelter. The resolution obliges member states, inter alia, to criminalise the provision or collection of funds which are to be used to carry out terrorist acts; freeze funds of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making funds available for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts.

In view of the binding nature of the resolution and to underline the EU's commitment to preventing the financing of terrorism, it was considered important to give effect to the Security Council resolution at EU level. To this end, the EU adopted three legal instruments in December 2001: a common position (No. 930/2001) ‘on combating terrorism', essentially transposing UNSCR 1373; a common position (No. 931/2001) ‘on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism'; and a Council regulation (No. 2580/2001) on ‘specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities'. Council regulations have direct effect in all EU member states. The latter two instruments provide for the drawing up of lists of persons and entities involved in terrorist acts who shall be subject to the widest possible police and judicial co-operation and freezing of assets.

Proposals of names for the lists may be made by any EU member state or third country. Evidence of involvement in a terrorist act, as defined in the common position, must be provided by the proposing state and, in the case of material received from a non-EU country, the Council has committed itself to apply additional safeguards to ensure that the proposal complies with the fundamental principles and procedures of the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Article 1(4) of common position 931/2001 sets out the criteria for listing of a person, group or entity. The proposing country must provide precise information that a decision has been taken, by a competent authority in that state, to instigate investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act or an attempt to perpetrate, participate in or facilitate such an act based on serious and credible evidence.

On the basis of a detailed and in-depth examination of all the information made available by the proposing member state and-or third country, and having satisfied itself that the information meets the criteria set out in Article 1(4), the Council updates the lists. Regular reviews of existing names take place at least once every six months.

These lists are a valuable instrument in the fight against terrorism. They are drawn up with great care. Any persons who may feel that they have been unjustly included on the lists are free to challenge their inclusion in the EU courts. The Council regulation also explicitly provides for exemptions to the freezing of assets to satisfy essential human needs of a listed person and his or her family, including in particular payments for foodstuffs, medicines and medical treatment, rent or mortgage payments and payment to public utilities.

Mr. M. Higgins

Unusually for the Minister, he has not answered the question. To be explicit, one of the chief negotiators on behalf of the New People's Army in the Philippines, Mr. José Maria Sison, in talks with the Filipino Government towards achieving peace, has been placed on this list. On the basis of what evidence and review of evidence was this done before the Minister lent his name to it? I know all the instruments which followed Resolution 1373 – we all do – and it is always useful to hear them again but not in extenso. Is it the case that the Government accepted the list that was supplied by the United States? Was a suggestion made to the Minister by the Dutch Government that the name should be included? Does the Minister not see the stupidity of including the name of a chief peace negotiator in the Filipino conflict on a list like this, which leaves him open to being extradited from Holland and being sent back to where he is totally unsafe and unable to participate in the peace process? What kind of knee-jerk reaction is that? Who supplied the list? Was it the United States? Did the Irish Government examine why this man's name should be on it? On whose suggestion was his name included? I know about the rest – I keep up to date.

Mr. Cowen

I apologise to the Deputy for the technical introduction. The specific bones of the reply, which I was reaching, should have been earlier in the reply in the first instance.

As regards the individual specifically referred to by the Deputy, the Council decided on 28 October 2002 to add José Maria Sison, also known as Armando Liwanag, also known as Joma, to the list. This followed similar action by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands. Mr. Sison founded and heads the Communist Party of the Philippines, a Maoist group formed in 1968. Violent attacks are conducted by its military wing, the New People's Army, which was also added to the EU lists. The common aim of these two entities is to overthrow the Philippine Government. The New People's Army has openly threatened to attack US civilian and military personnel in the Philippines and has claimed responsibility for the assassination of two Philippine congressmen in June 2001. Under his alias, Armando Liwinag, Mr. Sison instructed the New People's Army to "inflict severe casualties" on US soldiers in the Philippines in an order published in April 2002 in the newsletter of the Communist Party of the Philippines.

Mr. Sison is also the self-styled chief political consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, NDFP, which has an international office in the Netherlands, where Mr. Sison is currently based. The NDFP has been engaged in intermittent peace negotiations with the Philippines Government on behalf of the Communist Party of the Philippines. Before the decision to list Mr. Sison and the New People's Army, negotiations had broken down and hostilities resumed. However, it is understood that the Philippine Government does not regard the listing as precluding possible future negotiations with Mr. Sison.

Mr. M. Higgins

At least we have clarified the fact that the United States provided the name and that is how it appeared on the list. Does the Minister agree it is singularly unhelpful to the peace process in the Philippines that the chief negotiator on behalf of the NPA is probably not free to return to the Philippines or to participate in negotiations in Holland? Did the Dutch Government take some initiative in relation to the US list? I believe the list includes 38 organisations and about a dozen individuals. This country has a relationship with the Filipino peace process and there is a large number of Filipino citizens in the European Union. Why would somebody who is so important to the peace negotiations be put on such a list?

Mr. Cowen

I understand the list includes 35 individuals and 32 organisations. The reason for inclusion of the individual mentioned on the list was referred to in my earlier reply. He is on public record as advocating that US personnel in the Philippines should be regarded as legitimate targets in what he termed the overthrow of the Philippine Government.

Mr. M. Higgins

Has the Minister seen that statement?

Mr. Cowen

I do not have the newsletter with me. If I can obtain a copy I will send it to the Deputy. I believe it would be generally agreed that the methods advocated by Mr. Sison are appropriate to advance any cause.

Mr. M. Higgins

I doubt if he made the statement attributed to him.

Mr. Cowen

He is clearly on record as having done so. While the Philippine Government has said it is not precluded from continuing discussions with him at some future stage, the reality is that hostilities have been renewed. Without knowing all the details as, perhaps, the Deputy may, I suggest the individual concerned would be best advised that peaceful resolution of his dispute with the Philippine Government might be the best way for him to avoid being on the list.