Gay Mitchell
Question:26 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's current position on Iraq and related UN resolutions. [26755/02]
Priority Questions. - Foreign Conflicts.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:27 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reasons permanent members of the Security Council were given copies of the declaration by Iraq in relation to weapons of mass destruction as required by UN resolution ahead of the other members of the Security Council; if political pressure will not be exerted on the inspection team working under Dr. Hans Blix; and his views on whether the Security Council's evaluation of both the weapons report and the interim and final reports of the inspectors' work will be the definitive one. [26586/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 26 and 27 together.
Ireland believes that Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously, offers a genuine prospect of securing peaceful disarmament and avoiding war. The resolution is rigorous but fair in the demands it makes of Iraq. It offers the most likely means of achieving the three goals we set ourselves in our consideration of the current crisis, namely, to obtain Iraq's 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 Iraqi Government must fulfil in every respect the disarmament requirements which are unambiguously set out and fully co-operate with the UN inspectors. We are therefore pleased that the Iraqi Government has complied with the requirement to make a declaration by 8 December. This must now be examined.
The complete text of the Iraqi declaration contains sensitive information, including material on how to set about building weapons of mass destruction, and it was decided by the full Security Council that the text would only be seen by the weapons inspections teams and the permanent five, who possess the necessary expertise. This was intended to guard against leaks. Ireland is a very strong proponent of non-proliferation and we accept that the circulation of such information must be kept to a minimum. The material to be withheld by the inspectors will relate only to how such a capability could be built, it will not deal with whether Iraq has done so.
Ireland and the other members of the Security Council expect to see a revised version, with any sensitive material removed, in the next 24 to 48 hours. We expect to be given a clear picture by the inspectors of the extent and nature of any material which has had to be withheld. Equally we expect that all the members of the Security Council will be given complete access to any information required for them to fulfil their responsibility to determine whether Iraq has complied fully with its obligations under Resolution 1441. We have seen no evidence that undue political pressure will be put on the inspection teams. In any event, we have complete confidence in their integrity and professionalism.
A preliminary report of the Iraqi declaration will be provided by the inspectors next week and a full discussion by the Security Council is expected to take place in January. It is most unlikely that this meeting would result in a definitive evaluation. Further reports from the arms inspectors to the Security Council are to be expected.
Our view is that Resolution 1441 lays down the procedures for assessing the question of Iraqi non-compliance. These require that a report of non-compliance by Iraq from the inspection teams must be considered by a further meeting of the Security Council. It is then for the Security Council alone to assess whether Iraq has failed to meet its obligations and to decide on action which may be required.
What sources of independent assessment has the Minister identified to assist him and the Government in making a decision on whether Iraq has complied with the UN Security Council resolution? Has the Minister access to sources of information other than those of Governments which have taken up fixed positions on this matter?
Why is it that Ireland chose not to seek to examine the documents? The Minister briefly mentioned that this would be left to the five permanent members of the Security Council. Will the Minister expand on the reasons for that decision? Could Ireland not have used other resources to assist it in assessing the documentation which the Security Council received?
Is this not a further genuflection in the direction of the superiority, so to speak, of the five permanent members? Would the non-permanent members not have played a collective role in assessing this information? In the event of the Security Council taking a decision on whether the UN resolution has been breached, will the Minister come back and ensure that, by means of a debate in this House, he will assess the views of the representatives of the Irish people so that he will be well-informed on our response to any non-compliance or alleged non-compliance with the resolution?
In answer to the first part of the Deputy's question we will be primarily relying on UNMOVIC and the IAEA who will report to the Security Council. They are the people charged with an assessment of the situation. We will defer to them on this matter for an independent assessment.
The question of the restricted distribution of the report in full was raised by the Deputy. The reason distribution has been restricted is to guard against the danger that sensitive information might be disclosed. Ireland participated in this decision which was taken by the full Security Council. We fully accept the need to take all necessary steps to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This does not in any way detract from our strongly-held belief that we should all be treated equally. We do not regard this very special case as a precedent. The decision has our approval. Quite apart from the details as to how a bomb is constructed, whether the Iraqis have or have not done so is an issue that will be brought to our attention. The nature and extent of any capacity that they have in that area will be brought to our attention by the inspection teams in their report. We do not have the capacity and expertise ourselves. We are non-proliferators and we do not believe that type of information should be widely available.
In answer to the question about what action Ireland may take for the remainder of our tenure in the Security Council, that is a matter I am sure will be debated in the House at the appropriate time, based on the up to date information and assessment of what the Security Council will be considering at that stage.
The Minister's answers to this question are unsatisfactory. If it was the case that there was sensitive information about the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction contained in the report, why could that matter not have been noted by the IAEA and a summary copy report made to all the members of the Security Council who are responsible for Resolution 1441? Does the Minister agree that the authority of the Security Council has been enormously damaged by restricting the circulation to the five permanent members? I ask the Minister to consider this position: a country like Ireland with a history of support for non-proliferation or other countries like it on the Security Council is regarded as a dangerous source even though it has been elected to the Security Council by a huge number of members of the United Nations. It is now not to be trusted with the report.
The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs who has a representative on the Security Council seems to be perfectly happy that the report has been given to the United States. Does the Minister therefore not see any damage done to the United Nations by the fact that two permanent members, Britain and the United States, have access to this document while our representative on the Security Council will be given an amended and edited version? Does the Minister think that this is assisting the process? I find it extraordinary that the Minister would think so. Why did the Minister wish to be on the Security Council? If he were canvassing around the world today for votes would he say that we will only be there for certain matters and if any sensitive issue comes up such as something to do with nuclear weapons of mass destruction it must be vetted only by those who have such weapons? That is the logic of the Minister's position.
That is not the situation.
I will take a brief question from Deputy Mitchell before time is up.
Did the Minister or the General Affairs Council of the European Union give consideration to Iraq post-Saddam Hussein? Given the recent meeting of Iraqi dissidents in London, has some consideration been given to how the international community would support Iraq in the event of a new regime coming to power?
A final reply to both questions from the Minister.
In answer to Deputy Higgins' question I do not accept that in taking this decision the full membership of the Security Council was doing so for the purpose of undermining the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security. This was a prudent decision in the context of avoiding the proliferation of information. I will emphasise two points: the IAEA and UNMOVIC have been given the full report and they will report to us. We will refer to them when it comes to assessing the independence of the evaluation. The extent and nature of the information will be made available to us by those who have the capacity and expertise to examine it and provide an independent report. They are the people to deal with it as has been defined in the Security Council resolution.
Why did everyone else not get a report?
I have explained why the report was not circulated as a full report. It is because it contains sensitive material. We would be able to handle the sensitive material but it is a question of allowing those who have been given a task to do it. There are others like the P5 who have a nuclear capability who are in a position to give their views on that matter. We will listen to the IAEA and UNMOVIC in relation to this question. The Security Council decided to do it this way. If the charge of undermining the UN is applied to me it is applied to everyone on the Security Council and I do not accept that it is the intention or the consequence of this very special set of circumstances which arose in relation to some of the information in this report.
Does this mean that the P5 have a special relationship with the Security Council?
That is not the case. I wish the Irish public to know that the full extent and nature of this information will be available to Ireland and to all other members of the Security Council. We will receive their preliminary assessment at a meeting next week. I ask Deputy Higgins to note that the abridged version is about 3,000 pages long so it is not a question of a little summary being given to us.
That size of a report would not be beyond the Minister's capacity.
We cannot have Question Time by interruptions.
I am not as good a speed reader as the Deputy. In answer to Deputy Mitchell, the European Union did not discuss the post-Saddam Hussein situation. The European Union common position is very firmly posited in allowing the Security Council, the UN and the inspection teams to do their work, report back and hopefully find a peaceful solution to this problem.
We come to Question No. 28. As the Deputy is not in the House the question cannot be taken.
Can it be taken in my name?
At Priority Questions no supplementary may be asked by other Members and in that case the question is not called. There have been numerous rulings on this issue.