Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jan 2003

Vol. 560 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Foreign Conflicts: Motion.

I wish to share my 40 minutes as follows: the first 20 minutes between myself, Deputies Finian McGrath, Cowley and Connolly and the remaining 20 minutes, evenly, between Deputies Gormley and Ó Snodaigh.

That is agreed.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

– notes the huge build-up of United States and British troops and weapons in the Middle East in preparation for a war against Iraq;

– notes the relentless drive by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for such a war;

– notes that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared on Fox News, there's currently a state of war with Iraq that has not ended' (19 January 2003);

– notes the systematic undermining by the US Administration of the work of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq and the pre-empting by the United States of the provisions of UN Resolution 1441;

– notes the statement by Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq during 1991-98 and a supporter of the US Republican Party, that 90 to 95% of Iraq's previous weapons of mass destruction were verifiably put beyond use during that time;

– notes a leaked UN report projecting potentially a large scale and protracted ground offensive, supported by aerial bombardment, giving rise to half a million direct or indirect casualties; a chronic situation in south and central Iraq for 4.2 million children under five and one million pregnant and lactating women, two million internally displaced persons and an unknown number of infirm, terminally ill and elderly; and the devastation of all major infrastructure facilities such as bridges, railroads, electricity supplies and the provision for potable water;

– notes that the United Nations sponsored economic sanctions against Iraq have already caused untold suffering among the ordinary people of Iraq, resulting in the premature death of hundreds of thousands of children;

– notes the ongoing and regular, little reported, bombing by the United States and British air forces in northern and southern Iraq;

– notes the sentiments of the Irish people expressed in an Irish Times-MRBI poll published on 1 October 2002 which found 68% of respondents profoundly opposed to unilateral US action against Iraq and 59% wishing this State to oppose any UN authority for action;

– notes the widespread growth of popular opposition against a war in the worldwide protests held on 18 January this year, including an anti-war demonstration in Washington with up to 200,000 attending;

– condemns the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and its suppression of human rights and national and ethnic rights; and

– notes the widespread belief that the real motivation for a war on Iraq is the desire of the US Administration to control that country's oil reserves and increase its presence in the Middle Eastern region; calls on the Government to explain why it is:

– facilitating the precipitation of a war in Iraq by allowing US military planes to land and refuel at Shannon Airport;

– allowing a flagrant breach of the Defence Act 1954 and the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973;

– in apparent breach of Article 5 of the Hague Convention (v) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers whereby ‘belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power'; and

– in apparent breach of Article 28.3.1 of Bunreacht na nÉireann, the Irish Constitution, which directs that the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann;

further calls on the Government to:

– apply all possible pressure open to it to prevent an attack on Iraq by the United States or Britain; and

– immediately withdraw all landing and refuelling facilities in Shannon Airport for US military planes and any other aircraft carrying US military personnel, arms or munitions that may be used in a war in Iraq;

and calls for the future of the peoples and resources of Iraq and the Middle East generally to be determined by the people there, based on the principles of freedom, justice, democracy and human rights, free from both local dictatorships and imperialist or corporate interference.

The use of Shannon Airport by United States planes, military and commercial, carrying thousands of armed US soldiers and munitions in preparation for war surely makes a mockery of Irish neutrality and of our status as an independent sovereign State. We simply cannot claim to be neutral while the Government actively facilitates and effectively subsidises a military build-up by allowing Shannon Airport to be a critical link in what is clearly now an inevitable US-led war against Iraq. More important, it is clear that many hundreds of US planes landed at Shannon during the past year without declaring they were carry ing munitions and in clear breach of our Defence Act 1954 and the Air Navigation Order 1973.

From the over 500 planes that landed in Shannon last year, the House was told only today that a mere 30 sought and obtained the necessary permission. It was on 17 January 2003 that the United States was reminded by the Department of Transport of its obligations to seek the required permission. We know full well that this happened only as a direct result of the huge protests at Shannon by concerned Irish people. Will the Minister answer the question that the Taoiseach failed to answer today? Why did the Government collude with the United States for the past year in violation of this country's laws? Why were no inspectors sent on board US military planes at Shannon?

Iraq is already devastated by the massively destructive weapons used by the United States during the Gulf War. Much of Iraq's infrastructure has already been bombed out of existence. Even its sewerage and water treatment systems were destroyed to such an extent that disease has spread causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of babies and children. Iraq is militarily no longer a threat and the United Nations inspectors should be given all necessary time to deal with any outstanding issues. The United States has said it has information about weapons of mass destruction. If so, why has it not given that information to the arms inspectors instead of undermining their work and treating them with contempt?

It is clear Bush and Blair are intent on war but what is the real motivation for this impending war? If the United States was genuinely concerned about weapons of mass destruction, then it would be directing its attention to the nuclear threat from North Korea. If the United States was motivated by breaches of United Nations resolutions, then it would have to deal with the state which for far longer than any other has been in breach of UN resolutions. I refer to its own satellite client state – Israel – which continues to occupy, terrorise and savagely suppress the Palestinian people in what amounts to a campaign of ethnic cleansing. If the United States was acting in defence of human rights, then Iraq would be just one on a long list of states requiring so-called "regime change".

The truth is that the only motivation for this war is oil, and everyone in this House knows it. Iraq possesses the second largest reserves of oil in the world. We only have to look at the report commissioned by the United States Institute for Public Policy entitled, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century. This report details that America faces the biggest energy crisis in its history.

Deputy, you have used 13 minutes of the slot. I am not sure how you intend to divide the time with your colleagues.

I am almost finished.

The report targets the Saddam Hussein regime as a threat to US interests because of its control of Iraqi oil fields and it recommends the use of military intervention as a means to remedy the US energy crisis. Of course, most of President Bush's closest advisers and leaders of his Administration have backgrounds in the US oil industry.

Shannon Airport is being used as a military tool to assist the United States war machine in its plan to invade Iraq, install a puppet client state and exploit its oil reserves. That is what this war is about. This motion calls on the Government to oppose this preparation for an unjust war by withdrawing landing and refuelling facilities at Shannon from US military planes.

Deputy, there are 25 minutes remaining in the slot. Perhaps you might advise the Chair how you intend to divide it between five Members.

In fairness to the Green Party and Sinn Féin, it means there are only five minutes remaining for the Independents.

I welcome this opportunity for a debate on our motion regarding the terrible potential of another Gulf War. This motion is about peace and about trying to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands civilians in Iraq. This debate is not about being anti-American, and I challenge anyone in this House in that regard. The motion is about a group of Irish citizens being anti-war and not anti-American. We are pro-peace, pro-equality, pro-justice and pro-ending forever weapons of mass destruction. This motion is also about Ireland's neutrality and the need for our country to stand up and be counted.

Let me also commend the peace campaigners at Shannon Airport. I visited them last Saturday, 25 January, to express my support and solidarity. I thank them for their courage, integrity and love of peace. I urge every Irish citizen to support them in their noble campaign. I remind the people that they are being conned by their Government on this issue. It knows all the planes are coming through with weapons. I ask people to stop fuelling the war at Shannon. We should follow the example of the girls from the Loreto College, Swords, who yesterday and today protested against fuelling the war at Shannon. They are a noble group of students and fair play to the teachers and those involved.

Let me say why I am opposed to the war. A war against Iraq could result in massive loss of life for innocent men, women and children in that country as well as serious casualties among American and other troops. In the 1991 Gulf War, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children were killed or injured and many are still dying as an after effect of that battle. Among the American casualties not only were 148 killed in action, but close to 100,000 are still suffering from the ill-effects of Gulf War ill ness. Some 5,000 British servicemen are also suffering from the same condition. A new war with Iraq could bring massive destruction and pain.

Unfortunately, the proposed war against Iraq should not be seen as an aberration of Bush's foreign policy; it is an integral part of his preventative war doctrine which would allow the US to go into battle any time and any place he deems appropriate. With the end of the Cold War, people throughout the world looked forward to a century of peace and improved international relations. The Bush doctrine could result in decades of unending warfare and billions of dollars being spent on weapons of mass destruction rather than on human needs.

Of course, the Americans feel hurt and destroyed by the tragic events of 11 September but they are lashing out at the wrong target. While Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator, few people outside the White House believe he would launch an attack on America. His country is militarily weak. We, and the Americans, know where he is and if he ever launched an attack, it could be met with overwhelming military force, and he knows that.

A US-led war with Iraq will increase the likelihood of attacks against Americans and other citizens throughout Europe, particularly in Ireland. When the most powerful nation on earth unleashes a premeditated offensive attack against a poor and relatively defenceless nation killing thousands of innocent people and occupying that country, there will be massive resentment not only among the billion Muslims but also among people in the developing world. Already in the last year, respect and admiration for the US has plummeted in almost every nation. A pre-emptive war against Iraq would increase anti-Americanism and could result in a massive recruitment boost for others. I say this as a friend and as someone who has many relations who live in America. To be critical of American foreign policy does not mean one is anti-American. It is important we understand that and put it on the record.

If the United States goes to war without UN approval, it will move the world towards international anarchy and a mindset in which all nations will feel free to attack other nations for whatever reason. That is not a good idea in a world in which at least eight countries have nuclear weapons. What moral authority will the US have in calling for peace and negotiations in the Middle East or between India and Pakistan after it launches a major offensive against Iraq?

I urge everybody to support our motion. This is an historic moment in world history and I urge people to come out strongly against this proposed war.

I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in support of this motion. It is not every day that one can contribute something to a debate in this House which may have the effect of saving lives. Hopefully, this debate is about doing something to help people. Like you, a Cheann Comhairle, I work as a medical practitioner at the coalface. I am concerned about all that is happening and this major rush to war. It seems to me that we are being rushed along in a mad way towards a conflict. We can all remember wars, including Vietnam, in which so many people died. As well as the fatalities, many more suffered ongoing disabilities to which previous speakers have alluded.

A war in Iraq will cost billions of dollars but where is the money going to come from and what will happen as a result of its expenditure? Everything in the garden is not rosy: the United States is a very wealthy country, yet it has domestic problems. I wonder what is really happening. We are now hearing what is happening at Shannon Airport but only for the protests there we would have heard nothing. When all this was happening why did we not know about it? What about our Constitution and the right of the Dáil to have a say in these matters? We have been elected by the people and we should know what is happening. These are the questions that disturb me most and I am demanding answers to them.

I respect America but what standing will the US have if it rushes into a war without UN sanction? I want to know what all this means to ordinary people on the ground. I hope that what I am saying today may help to save a few lives or maybe even a million lives, who knows? We must consider the reports that are emanating from paediatricians in Iraq who have calculated the effects of the Gulf War. Millions of Iraqi children are in a desperate situation, starving as a result of sanctions, but what will it be like after a war? There have been disturbing reports from psychologists in Iraq saying that children are not even talking about what is happening because they are so afraid. Parents are afraid, also, so how can they reassure their children? I have children and I do not know how I would react in such a situation. We should consider all of this.

There is an obligation on the House to ensure we know exactly what is happening. We are being rushed headlong into a war that will not do anyone any good. It is time to pause.

During the debate on the Nice treaty referendum the Government told us the amendment it proposed would enshrine the concept of neutrality in the Constitution. Anyone who has observed the comings and goings in Shannon will know that they were grievously misled by the Government on this issue and, indeed, by other parties. The question we must ask ourselves is what does neutrality mean now. According to the Government in its own wonderfully flexible way, it means exactly what it wants it to mean. It means it can assist the American war effort, that planes with war munitions can land at Shannon, and that uniformed troops heading for the war zone can walk freely around Shannon. So, it is not quite in keeping with the Hague Con vention on neutrality, or with our Constitution and legislation.

The House has been deliberately misled on these issues. On 26 November 2002, I received a reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, on the question of arms being carried through Shannon. The reply was deliberately misleading. The Minister sought to give the impression that no arms were going through Shannon but, of course, we now know that this is not the case. We know from a report in The Sunday Business Post that the Minister had at that stage a confidential memorandum in his possession that showed clearly that soldiers were going through and that they required permission under the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973. That is what it said in the newspaper so perhaps the Minister could refute it.

Only the week before last, the Minister was forced to concede that American troops were indeed carrying arms, but only when he was caught. He knew he had to concede the point because people in Shannon had witnessed it. Last week, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, granted such permission surreptitiously and retrospectively. This all reveals an unprecedented level of contempt for the House. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Cowen, might be good enough to tell the House when he granted permission to uniformed US troops to disembark at Shannon under section 317 of the Defence Act 1954. I would like to have a clear answer to that question. The Minister might also wish to tell the House why he continues to refuse to have checks carried out on planes at Shannon. Is he afraid that such checks will reveal that these cargo planes are carrying munitions, as so many people suspect?

The Government's position on Shannon and Iraq has exposed its dishonesty, duplicity and hypocrisy. In Finland and Austria, both neutral and non-aligned states, no refuelling of US war planes is taking place. France and Germany, who are members of NATO, are displaying more backbone than Ireland. The Government, however, lacks courage and conviction, unlike the peace campaigners in Shannon who have acted out of conviction. I congratulate my Green Party colleagues in Shannon – Tim Hourigan, Ed Horgan and Mary Kelly, who stood for our party in Donegal and who this evening is sitting in a Limerick jail.

Recently, a Minister appeared with me on a radio programme and claimed that in international diplomacy there are no principles, only interests.

It was the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. Has it really come to this appalling vista: when nothing matters only the mighty dollar, where every person has a price and where the definition of integrity is that when one is bought, one stays bought? Is this what the Boston model of this morally bankrupt Government has to offer the country? I have news for the Minister, however. I think he has misjudged and underestimated the public. It is strange coming from such a populist party because it was de Valera who said that all he had to do was look into his heart to know what the Irish people were thinking.

The Deputy should do it now.

I do not have to do that because I just look at the opinion polls.

The Deputy knows it all.

The opinion polls tell us that the Irish people will not support a war, even with a UN mandate.

That is not true.

The polls also tell us that the US population will accept war only with a UN mandate. By assisting the American war effort the Minister is complicit in acts of terrorism against the Iraqi people. He will have the blood of innocent Iraqi women and children on his hands. Let us be clear that the Minister does not speak or act in my name and he certainly does not act in the name of the Irish people. The latest survey shows that the majority of Irish people are opposed to this war. That is a fact.

I make a distinction between the American people and the Government of George W. Bush. In the same way, I make a distinction between the honourable people of Iraq and the tyrant Saddam Hussein. As Deputy Finian McGrath said, we are not anti-American. Mr. Bush is a dangerously simplistic individual, trying to grapple with some of the most complex foreign policy issues that have ever faced an American president. A war in Iraq will destabilise the entire region. It will be very difficult to keep the lid on civil unrest in countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. In addition, it will also act as a recruiting call to terrorists, not just in al-Qaeda but also in other organisations. The result will be more retaliatory terrorist attacks leading in turn to greater security measures and, obviously, the erosion of civil liberties.

We are entering a period of prolonged darkness in human history. The cost to humanity, the global community and future generations is incalculable. At a time when we have the capability and resources to solve global poverty, to rid our world of hunger and disease, we are about to embark on a mad and obscene war which will divide humanity on ethnic and religious grounds, widen the gap between rich and poor and squander billions of dollars on weapons of mass destruction.

The greatest challenge now facing humanity is not global terrorism, it is global warming. We know Mr. Bush's attitude to that and to the Kyoto Protocol in particular. This is about vested interests, and Mr. Bush's vested interest in relation to the Kyoto Protocol is oil, as it is in relation to Iraq. One has only to look at the Cheney report which states that the US has to make the security of oil supply a major plank of US foreign policy. To maintain the consumerist lifestyle of the Americans and the West, oil imports in America will have to increase from the current 10.4 million barrels a day to a massive 16.7 million barrels in 2020. That is a lot of oil, a lot of carbon dioxide, a lot of global warming and a hell of a lot of irresponsibility. Can one doubt this is about oil when one looks at the Bush cabinet, Mr. Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Don Evans and Gale Norton, all of whom have associations with oil companies?

Despite all this evidence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on a radio programme, dismissed the idea that this could be about oil. I listened very carefully to what he had to say and he very quickly jumped to the defence of the USA. The Minister has become very good at jumping. The only question now is, how high? That is determined by George W. Bush. There is something rather pathetic about this self-styled rottweiler now a performing poodle.

The Deputy should withdraw that remark about the Minister.

It is based on the Deputy's usual gratuitous insults.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark. He must not refer to a Minister in that way.

It is normal parliamentary language.

It is not normal parliamentary language to refer to a Member of the House in that way.

It is perfectly acceptable. I referred to him as a performing poodle. Tony Blair has been referred—

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.

That is absurd.

The Deputy may feel it is absurd but I will not allow personal remarks of that nature to be hurled at any Member of this House at any time.

The Minister understands perfectly well that it is not a personal remark, it is a political remark. Tony Blair has been referred to as a poodle and I am saying that the Minister is behaving in a similar fashion.

The Deputy should be more tempered in his language.

There are much more objectionable things he could say.

I concur with what many of my colleagues said in this debate. I too believe the Government has repeatedly and deliberately misled the Dáil and the Irish people—

It is not appropriate to make that charge. The Deputy may do so by putting down a vote of censure. It is not appropriate to suggest that a Member of this House deliberately misled anybody.

I did not refer to a Member, I mentioned—

On a point of order, the Taoiseach did so today and I have the proof here in the replies from the Ministers for Transport and Foreign Affairs.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh to continue, please.

I will show how the Government, not a single person, in this Chamber has misled the Dáil and the people on the use of Shannon Airport and our neutrality. It has been complicit in war preparations in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, have repeatedly assured the House since early October that they consider the UN to be supreme in these matters and that they will abide by Security Council resolutions.

Since October, the Taoiseach has insisted that no deal exists to allow Shannon Airport to be used by the US for war preparations. The Government has been very evasive in its answers to questions raised by me and other Deputies as to whether it has offered co-operation to the US in its war preparations. Recent revelations have shown that the Government has allowed Shannon Airport to be used as a pit-stop on the way to war by civilian and military aircraft. The Security Council has not authorised force and any facilitation of the current US-led war is not in keeping with UN Security Council policy. The Government has, therefore, deceived the Dáil and the public about the true position.

Hear, hear.

These war manoeuvres have taken place in violation of our laws. The Air Navigation Order 1973 states that it is against the law to carry munitions of war on an aircraft. We now know that this is happening in Shannon. The Air Navigation Order 1952 states that no foreign military aircraft shall fly over or land in the State without the express permission of the Minister.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, in reply to a question tabled by me on 10 December said that no routine applications for overflights or landing had been refused because the Government had confirmed that the aircraft did not carry arms or ammunition and were not part of a military exercise or operation. Yet, we know these things have happened. The Minister also said that no applications were made for ministerial exemptions of these conditions. If this is so, either the Government has extended permission so that the applications for exemptions are not required or it is in dereliction of its duties in enforcing the law. We deserve full disclosure in this regard.

The Defence Act 1954 states that no one can enter or land in the State while wearing any foreign military uniform save with the express permission in writing of a Minister. Yet, we have photographs to prove otherwise. They have been printed in all the national newspapers and throughout the world.

The Government has breached not only that legislation but the obligations of a neutral State as per the Hague Convention which states that belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of munitions of war or supplies across a territory of a neutral power. Article 5 of that convention states that the responsibility lies with the neutral power to ensure this does not occur. This has not happened in the past six months while US troops have used Shannon on its way to war. This has been done without the consent of the Dáil and in violation of Article 28 of the Constitution and is contrary to the spirit of Articles 29.1 and 29.2.

In response to a question tabled by me on 3 December the Minister reassured me that the Government would at all times act in accordance with its constitutional and legal obligations with respect to the granting of overflight and landing permission, but it has not done so.

I first sought a full debate on Iraq last September, but the Government has repeatedly refused to hold such a debate. What is it hiding? Why did it take the independent—

We have nothing to hide.

The Government must have something to hide because it has refused my request time and again.

When will Sinn Fein disarm?

I am charging that the Government—

Please allow Deputy Ó Snodaigh to continue without interruption.

There are hypocrites on the other side. I have outlined some of the hypocrisy and I will continue to do so in the few minutes remaining to me.

Please allow the Deputy to conclude.

Sinn Féin is anti-war, it is a joke. Sinn Féin is pro-peace.

One need only look at the record of this Government and the previous one on neutrality to see the hypocrisy involved. It joined NATO's PfP despite promises to the contrary. It went around the country last year saying it would protect neutrality through the Nice treaty but did the exact opposite as soon as the treaty was passed. It says "here, we have our airport and you can use it". Some 250,000 troops travelling to Iraq is no tea party. They do not have a UN mandate because they are not UN soldiers, but are British and American soldiers on their way to war. For a neutral country to allow its airports to be used breaches any definition of neutrality. These overflights and the permission to land and allow our airports to be used for the transfer of munitions must stop immediately. I urge the Government to withdraw any permission it has issued and use its position, whatever is left of it at this stage, to try to ensure we withdraw from the brink of war and try to deal with international conflicts in a peaceful manner.

When did Sinn Féin become neutral?

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"– affirms that the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

– reaffirms Ireland's determination to discharge its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council;

– remains convinced that the use of force should be a last resort to be employed only after all other means have been exhausted;

– notes the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 in which Ireland took an active part;

– considers that this Resolution provides the best prospect for resolving the crisis without the use of military force and for ensuring the removal of Iraq's capability to deploy or develop weapons of mass destruction;

– records its dismay at the Iraqi Government's continued defiance over more than a decade of its obligations under Security Council Resolutions, its appalling record of human rights abuses both within and outside its borders, its aggression against its neighbours and its repeated failure to co-operate with UN-mandated sanctions, to the detriment of the civilian population of Iraq;

– commends the various efforts being undertaken by the international community to find a peaceful resolution to this crisis and Ireland's contribution to these efforts;

– encourages the Government in the active role which it plays, in the EU and other international fora, in the international community's efforts to resolve this crisis peacefully;

– calls upon the Iraqi Government to comply immediately and fully with the obligations imposed upon it by numerous decisions of the Security Council and in particular to co-operate proactively with the arms inspectors;

– expresses its support for the continuing work of the arms inspectors in carrying forward their task and commends their work to date;

– calls on all Governments to extend every assistance to the arms inspectors, including the provision of relevant intelligence;

– urges all parties concerned, and in particular the Iraqi Government, to make every effort to ensure that this crisis will be resolved by peaceful diplomatic means;

– recognises that the ongoing granting of overflight and landing rights to US military aircraft and the transiting of US military personnel through Shannon Airport is consistent with arrangements going back decades and is being conducted in full accordance with all relevant Constitutional and legislative provisions, most notably the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order, 1973 and section 317 of the Defence Act, 1954; and

– welcomes the commitment of the Government, in the event of military action being initiated against Iraq, either with or without further UN sanction, to review the situation with regard to overflight and landing facilities and to initiate a debate in this House."

I will speak shortly about the current situation with regard to Iraq. Before doing so, however, I wish to deal with comment and speculation on current arrangements to allow for access to Shannon Airport by transiting US military aircraft and personnel.

Let me begin with the historical and geographical background. Ireland's geographical position places it on the main flight path between North America and Europe. Shannon was initially developed as a refuelling point for transatlantic flights, when limited aircraft range obliged most aircraft to touch down in Ireland when travelling to and from the US.

For many decades, military aircraft of various nationalities have been refuelling at Shannon or, as aircraft ranges have extended, overflying Ireland on their way to or from North America. There has also been a practice, again going back decades, for civilian aircraft carrying US and Canadian military personnel and civilian staff to refuel at Shannon on their way to and from various bases around the world. Shannon has continued to be popular because of its efficient and friendly service. This business has brought jobs and income to the wider Shannon area and generated revenue for Aer Rianta.

The fact that these connections developed should come as no surprise to anyone. Ireland is not a military ally of the United States. We are not obliged to the United States by any mutual defence commitment. Ireland and the United States are good friends, and these good relations are obvious. We are bound to America by close ties of blood and history. Irish men and women found prosperity and a future in the United States when Ireland could offer them nothing. These men and women helped make the United States what it is today. Ireland's recent prosperity and the staunching of the haermorrhage of emigration is party due to US investment. Our newfound peace is in no small measure due to the support received from successive US Administrations, Congress and private interests. These facts do not make us a military ally of the US, nor do they require us to uncritically support US foreign policy. They are factors which no responsible Irish Government, conscious of the interests of the Irish people, would wish to ignore.

The practice of facilitating the overflight and landing of US military aircraft and personnel dates back to a time before many of us in this House, including myself, were even born. This practice continued throughout the Cold War, and all the conflicts, wars and upheavals of the past 50 years. It has been maintained under successive Governments, comprising various political parties. Claims that this Government has adopted a new policy which undermines Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality are nonsense. They are nothing more than political opportunism.

Let me now explain in full the details of the arrangements which apply, and the steps I initiated last September to improve the implementation of these arrangements. These improvements have been introduced with the full co-operation of the US authorities. I will deal first with military aircraft.

The legislative basis for control of military overflights and landings is the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952 which prohibits foreign military aircraft from flying over or landing in the State except by the express invitation or permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Successive foreign affairs Ministers have routinely granted permission on condition that the aircraft is unarmed, that is, not carrying arms, ammunition or explosives, not involved in intelligence-gathering and not engaged in military exercises. It should be noted that these conditions are policy stipulations applied at the discretion of successive Ministers and not legal requirements. Under the 1952 order, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has full discretion in the granting of permission to foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State, which is the legal position.

The arrangements for granting permission for the landing of foreign military aircraft are the same for all countries. The embassy of the country concerned is required to submit a written request, via a third party note, in respect of every landing. In almost all cases, this will include confirmation that the aircraft carries no arms, ammunition, explosives, photographic or intelligence gathering equipment. After consultation with the Departments of Defence and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, my Department, if satisfied with the application, issues a written response by third party note to the embassy concerned granting permission for the overflight. Any request for a landing by a military aircraft carrying munitions would be examined particularly closely.

Many of the landing requests relate to refuelling of VIP transports, which are military airplanes. In the case of the US, there are also a substantial number of cargo planes, which we are informed do not carry munitions.

The Minister does not know that.

The same procedure and conditions applying to landings of military aircraft generally apply to the granting of permission for overflights of military aircraft, that is military aircraft flying through sovereign Irish airspace but not landing in Ireland. In other words, permission must be sought and granted for the overflight of every military aircraft.

There are two categories of exception to this rule. First, there is a group of 17 countries which has at different times over a long period of years, been granted blanket permission for the overflight of military aircraft on condition that they give my Department advance notice of the details of each flight. If they give us advance notice of the details of each flight, there is no requirement for a confirmatory note from us.

The specific arrangements that apply to the United States regarding overflights were agreed in the exchange of letters in January 1959 between the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Frank Aiken, and the US ambassador. Under this agreement, the US is granted blanket permission for overflights of unarmed military aircraft. The terms of the permission specify that the aircraft be unarmed, carry only cargo and passengers and comply with the navigational requirements and flight patterns specified by the Government of Ireland under the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The blanket permission includes a stipulation that the permission will be subject to reconsideration in the event of a serious deterioration in the international situation. In exchanges between the embassy and the Department of External Affairs, which preceded the exchange of letters, "cargo" was defined generally as "support supplies", for example, food, clothing and household equipment. The US Embassy provides regular post hoc statistics of overflights, broken down by month, which is totally in compliance.

Requests for overflights by US military aircraft carrying munitions are extremely rare. I understand that internal US guidelines make clear that Ireland does not generally permit the overflight and landing of armed military aircraft. At my direction, officials of my Department have reminded the US authorities that advance permission must be sought for every flight not meeting the usual conditions.

Another point needs to be made in relation to the overflight and landing of foreign military aircraft. On 21 September 2001, the Taoiseach, with my full agreement, announced that the State would facilitate military aircraft operating in pursuit of UN Security Council Resolution 1368 by waiving the normal conditions that apply to the granting of permission for landings and overflights by such aircraft – that they be unarmed, carry no ammunition or explosives, not be involved in intelligence-gathering and not engaged in military exercises. Deputies will recall that in this resolution, the Security Council classified the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 as a threat to international peace and security and called on all states to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators and organisers. In the event, no request seeking to avail of this waiver has been received. The US has continued to follow standard procedures, notwithstanding the availability of this exemption from normal requirements.

The arrangements in relation to civilian aircraft are the responsibility of the Minister for Transport, but I will address the matter on behalf of the Government with a view to providing a complete account of the present arrangements. Civil aviation standards in force internationally are governed by the provisions of the 1941 Chicago Convention, to which Ireland is one of the signatories. Article 35 of the convention states that "no munitions of war may be carried in or above the territory of a State in aircraft engaged in international navigation, except by permission of such State". The provisions of the convention came into effect in Ireland through the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1946, which made provision for the making of ministerial orders to give effect to the terms of the Chicago Convention.

Sections 6 and 7 of the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973, which was amended in 1989, prohibit the carriage of munitions of war, including weapons and dangerous goods by aircraft overflying or registered in Ireland. In this context, "munitions of war" includes weapons and ammunition designed for use in warfare and ammunition and parts thereof on an aircraft in or over the State. Under section 5 of the order, as amended, and in the context of a specific aircraft operation, the Minister for Transport is empowered to exempt a specified aircraft from this prohibition to allow for the carriage of munitions of war. The requirement for an exemption does not apply to munitions of war carried on board aircraft registered in another state where munitions of war may legally be carried to ensure the safety of the aircraft or persons on board, for example, weapons carried by authorised air marshals or bodyguards. Any civilian aircraft seeking to land or overfly the State requires the permission of the Minister for Transport to carry, military weapons or munitions. Civilian aircraft carrying unarmed troops are treated as normal passenger freight and do not require special authorisation to overfly or land, aside from permission to wear military uniform. As I have indicated, under the 1973 order carriers of troops accompanied by arms are obliged to seek exemption from landing and overflight prohibitions.

It came to the notice of my Department during the course of a review of arrangements, initiated at my direction, that US troops travelling by civilian aircraft were often accompanied by their personal weapons, a matter to which I referred in a recent statement. The US authorities made clear that such weapons are not loaded, are normally stowed in the hold and are not taken off aircraft while on the ground in Ireland and that troops are issued with ammunition only on arrival at the ultimate destination. It was pointed out to the US authorities that the airlines concerned were nevertheless obliged to seek the permission of the Minister for Transport to carry such weapons and ammunition and the Department of Transport wrote directly to the carriers concerned reminding them of this requirement. The civilian carriers involved are now routinely submitting advance information on side-arms and any other military cargo to the Department of Transport to facilitate compliance with the terms of the 1973 order. This accounts for the reported rise in the number of authorisations issued by the Minister for Transport for the shipment of so-called "munitions of war".

We are not talking about large scale movements of heavy munitions, but the personal weapons of the soldiers on board and limited quantities of ammunition for the weapons. I am informed that the practice of troops being accompanied by their personal weapons and limited quantities of ammunition is not unusual and has sometimes been followed by contingents of the Defence Forces when travelling abroad on overseas missions. Some 43 overflight exemptions to the 1973 order for overflights of civilian aircraft carrying munitions were granted between 11 September 2001 and early January 2003. The only permission for the landing of a civilian aircraft carrying munitions granted during that period involved the delivery of munitions to the Defence Forces.

A Cheann Comhairle, may I ask the Minister to accept a brief question?

I am putting the position on the record.

I am entitled under Standing Orders to ask a question.

The Minister may decide if he wishes to accept the question.

I wish to place this matter on the record and I am entitled to do so.

I want the Minister to clarify something.

The Deputy had plenty of time.

I listened to Deputy Higgins without interrupting him.

Were the 500 other landings without munitions in breach of the regulations?

Deputy Higgins should allow the Minister to conclude.

Were they in breach of regulations?

I will answer the question. Deputy Higgins assumes that military aircraft carrying munitions of war land in Ireland, but I can confirm that that is not the case. The Deputy's problem is that he assumes they are carrying munitions of war. I have explained to the Deputy about cargo aeroplanes, VIP transport and other aircraft that come within the definition of military aircraft.

Were they in breach of regulations?

I will now proceed with my speech.

Were they in breach of the regulations?

Another matter—

Yes, they were.

No, they were not carrying munitions of war.

Were they carrying guns?

The Deputy should listen.

I have explained the position to Deputy Higgins.

They were carrying guns.

Deputy Higgins should allow the Minister to continue his contribution.

I will explain everything to the Deputy if he allows me to proceed, although I do not think he wants to hear it.

They were carrying guns.

Another matter on which I have acted to tighten the application of regulations relates to the wearing of military uniforms by foreign troops. Under section 317 of the Defence Act 1954 military personnel are forbidden to enter or land in the State while wearing a uniform except with written ministerial permission. Following discussions between my Department and the United States Embassy, ministerial permission to wear duty uniform in the "immediate vicinity of an arrival-departure airfield" was sought and granted. Any requests for exceptions to this policy are to be submitted to my Department.

When did that happen?

The Deputy should allow the Minister to continue.

That happened on or around 13 January last.

I knew it.

The Deputy should allow me to explain the matter.

The Minister has explained.

I hope that this description—

I have heard all that I need to know.

The Deputy needs to know more.

I knew that it was all retrospective.

I hope that this description of arrangements—

The Minister has been caught with his pants down.

I will take action if Deputy Gormley does not allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

I have listened to Deputy Gormley making some very objectionable remarks and I want to answer them. I do not have much time. I have just as much conviction and integrity as Deputy Gormley. I hope that my description of arrangements will make clear for the House the precise arrangements which apply in relation to overflights and landings. I hope it will be recog nised that the Government has done more than all its predecessors put together—

Hear, hear.

—to ensure that the practices and arrangements built up over the years are operated in strict compliance with the precise legal requirements.

It has only taken action in the past week.

Before leaving the issue of Shannon, I express my serious concern at the incident which occurred this morning involving a violent attack on a US military transport aircraft at Shannon Airport.

It was not violent.

It is the second incident of this nature in recent months. I fully respect the rights of people to hold political opinions and to protest peacefully in support of them. A line must be drawn, however, between peaceful protest and acts of trespass and the infliction of wanton damage to property.

Hear, hear.

Pacifism is one thing, but violent pacifism, surely a contradiction in terms, is another.

Hear, hear.

What about violence against people?

I would also point out the irresponsibility of acts which could—

What about bombs?

I have listened to the Deputies opposite and I ask for a little respect in return.

That is all right.

I am entitled to have my say in a democracy. I wish to point out the irresponsibility of acts which will surely come to the attention of terrorist groups keen to identify potential targets.

Is Shannon a potential target?

Security will be stepped up at Shannon in response to the recent attacks on aircraft stationed there.

It is about time.

Almost 12 years have passed since the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 687 in April 1991 ordering Iraq to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction. A series of resolutions has followed, economic sanctions have been imposed and great hardship has been inflicted upon the Iraqi people. There has yet to be a satisfactory response from the Iraqi leadership to the entirely justified demands of the international community.

They are unjustified.

What about Israel?

I support the United Nations all the time – that is the difference between Deputy Higgins and me.

My party supports the UN charter all the time.

I am entitled to speak without interruption.

Yes, but the Minister heckled me when I was speaking.

The record of the House will show that I have the floor. I cannot heckle while I am speaking.

The Minister has managed it.

We stand on the brink of a third Gulf war, the consequences of which, if it takes place against our wishes, could be very grave. Apart from the horrific human suffering that is likely to accompany the outbreak of war, there is a risk of destabilising an already volatile region. Support for terrorism could grow and economies may suffer.

The Irish Government does not wish to see war take place. We have raised our voice and used our influence in every forum available to us to urge the need for a peaceful solution. We are determined to discharge our international obligations, both in trying to avert conflict and in carrying out the decisions of the Security Council.

Ireland's approach to this crisis is based on our long-standing commitment to international peace, justice, security and stability upheld by the rule of law, peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for human rights. These are the principles which have informed Irish foreign policy under successive Governments ever since the foundation of the State. Ireland is a strong supporter of the system of collective international security set forth in the United Nations charter. We regard the United Nations as the centre of this system of collective security. We attach particular importance to the role of the Security Council as having primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In carrying out its duties under this responsibility, the council is acting on behalf of the entire membership of the United Nations.

Under Article 25 all members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the council. This is a clear obligation on all states. Iraq's continued defiance of the lawful decisions of the Security Council is a challenge to the authority of the council and the legitimacy of the post-war international order. It undermines confidence in the rule of law and the efficacy of international arms control regimes. This defiance is ultimately as much a threat to international security as is the possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, the possession of these dreadful weapons is the immediate threat which must be dealt with. There should be no doubt that possession alone, regardless of whether there is a proven intent to use these arms, is a real and intolerable threat, as well as being banned by international treaties. There is nothing abstract about this. The Iraqi regime has initiated two major wars and used chemical weapons against both enemy soldiers and its own people.

The Government supported it.

Iraq has done all in its power to thwart the efforts of arms inspectors and to conceal its weapons holdings and programmes. The regime has spent vast sums of money, diverted a great part of its national effort and subjected its people to severe deprivation rather than co-operate sufficiently with inspectors. The people of Iraq have suffered as a consequence of UN sanctions. Some countries, including Ireland, have striven with limited success to reduce the impact of these sanctions on the most vulnerable elements of society. The Iraqi authorities could have ensured the lifting of sanctions by co-operating with the inspectors. Instead, they sought to use the sanctions as a propaganda tool, disrupting revenue flows to the oil for food programme and failing to concentrate contracts on areas of greatest humanitarian need. UN reports confirm this. They blatantly sought to buy political support for the ending of the sanctions by offering contracts to foreign oil companies. They sought the dismantling of the sanctions regime without complying with the resolutions of the Security Council. What is the purpose of this determined and reckless stand, if not to intimidate and perhaps once again coerce their neighbours and those who stand against them?

The authority of the Security Council must be upheld. Kofi Annan has said: "All states have a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and to maintain international order." He could not have been more direct when he said last September: "If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities." This has been clear from the beginning. In the debate which took place in this House on 24 July 1946 when Ireland decided to apply for membership of the United Nations, Eamon de Valera stressed that Article 25 contained a serious obligation and went on to say that "we should be bound to take whatever action the Security Council should decide upon, and to participate in the enforcement measures . . . " He then commented on the difficulties which would be created for the effectiveness of the UN where "nations want to have it both ways. They want to have the advantages of collective security and of avoiding obligations."

Ireland long ago reached the decision that it would live up to its responsibilities as a country proud to be a member of the United Nations. We took this decision on grounds of principle, acting on the belief that nations can order the conduct of international relations so as to deter aggression and remove threats to international peace and security. We also adopted this course on the grounds of national self-interest, knowing that the safety and prosperity of small countries in particular require an international order based on justice and law and respect for the less powerful.

The United Nations is a body committed to the maintenance of international peace and security, but it is not a pacifist organisation. The Security Council is empowered under Chapter VII of the charter to determine the existence of any threat to the peace and to decide what measures are necessary to restore international peace and security. These measures may include the use of force where sanctions and other means of pressure have failed. No one is under any illusion that military action provides a desirable solution. On the contrary, force must be used only as a last resort when all other means have been exhausted. Ireland very much wants to see a peaceful solution to this crisis. This is why Ireland, together with our fellow members of the Security Council, made such an effort to agree Resolution 1441 on 8 November last. This resolution was adopted unanimously by all 15 members of the Council, including Syria, an Arab state and Iraq's neighbour.

The resolution brings the entire issue of the use of military force back within the framework of the United Nations. It gives Iraq a final opportunity to demonstrate that it has rid itself of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as it has been required to do by successive Security Council resolutions. It is designed to avert war. However, the resolution makes it clear that Iraq will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. In other words, the risk of war can be avoided if Iraq complies fully with the terms of the resolution. The decision is in Iraq's hands. The resolution sent the arms inspectors back into Iraq with a strengthened mandate to complete their task. It requires Iraq to make a complete and accurate declaration of all holdings of prohibited weapons or programmes to develop them and to co-operate fully in the implementation of the resolution and with the arms inspectors. If Iraq should fail to meet these conditions, then the Security Council is to convene immediately to assess any alleged material breach of Iraq's obligations, to consider the situation arising, and to decide upon any further steps necessary to bring about full compliance with its resolutions.

The resolution does not specify that a further resolution is required to authorise the use of force. This would simply not have been acceptable to either Britain or America, both of whom hold veto power on the council, and was not attainable. These two countries have long held the view that earlier Security Council resolutions already mandate the use of force and that no further authorisation is required. There is no international legal consensus on the validity of the different interpretations. There is no definitive position of the international community on what is still a hypothetical question. Regardless of the legal arguments which have been advanced on both sides, Ireland considers that there is an overriding political need for the Security Council to determine whether its resolutions have been breached and to take a further decision on what measures should be adopted in response.

Resolution 1441 makes clear that any material breach of Iraq's obligations will come before the Security Council for consideration. We hope that this will inhibit the use of force without a further decision of the council. Deputies will recall that in the months before this resolution was adopted, there was a widespread expectation of unilateral use of force by the United States among some commentators. Today the issue is still before the Security Council and efforts continue in the council to secure a peaceful solution in line with the terms set out in the resolutions. War can be averted and is not inevitable if Iraq divests itself of its weapons of mass destruction now.

Nevertheless, the Government's amendments to the motion before the House make clear that in the event of military action being initiated against Iraq, either with or without further UN sanction, the Government, having reviewed the situation, will initiate a debate in this House on the position to be adopted by Ireland. All of us in this House hope that military conflict can be avoided. It has to be said, however, that there is still some considerable way to go before this danger can be averted. On 7 December the Iraqi Government submitted its declaration on weapons of mass destruction to the Security Council. Two days ago, the arms inspectors made a report updating the council on the progress of inspections. The report delivered by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. El Baradei, was fairly positive and took the view that Iraq does not have any current nuclear weapons programme. However, he did cite the need for more active Iraqi co-operation with the inspectors.

The report delivered by Dr. Blix, head of UNMOVIC, the main weapons inspection body, was far less positive and raised a number of serious questions. He pointed out that Resolution 1441 required Iraqi co-operation to be immediate, unconditional and active. He then made it clear that such co-operation had not been forth coming. Dr. Blix reported in his own words that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." He went on to say that "Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access," but that "[a] similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance."

He then listed a whole series of areas where the Iraqi declaration is incomplete or Iraq has failed to produce evidence to support its claims that it has destroyed weapons or that they are absent. He pointed out that it was for Iraq to produce credible evidence to this effect and not for the inspectors to prove the contrary. Among the discrepancies he listed were 6,500 chemical bombs containing 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent, holdings of VX nerve gas precursors, quantities of anthrax and 650 kilograms of bacterial growth media sufficient to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax as well as numbers of Scud missiles and further missile development. Iraq's account so far is simply not believable and that is not acceptable. The arms inspectors are not in Iraq to play hide-and-seek with the authorities. They are there to verify that Iraq's claims to have disarmed are true and can be demonstrated. It is not the inspectors' job to search for evidence of Iraqi wrongdoing and deception. It is for the Iraqis to prove they have in fact done what they claim to have done. The Iraqis were known to be in possession of well-documented quantities of weapons. Where are those weapons now? The sums have to add up, and Dr. Blix has made it clear that as of now they do not add up. Instead there are glaring discrepancies.

The Iraqis are not being asked to do the impossible. They are being asked for normal documentary proof or, failing that, simple human testimony that they have actually destroyed these weapons. They cannot expect the rest of the world just to accept their word without a shred of evidence that these weapons have been destroyed. Nothing Iraq has done merits such trust. It is deeply worrying that Iraq is not prepared to co-operate actively with the inspectors as it is required to do under Resolution 1441. This is not new, however.

Regrettably, the record shows that the regime in Baghdad responds only to the threat of military action in the face of further non-compliance. For that threat to be credible, it has to be real and visible. When Deputy Gormley says that I have blood on my hands, to which I take grave exception, he should know that Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, who has done more than any other individual to prevent war, has made the same point. Only two weeks ago, he said:

I would want to make a distinction between pressure and the threat of use of force and the actual use of force. I think there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the pressure has been effec tive, has worked, and without that pressure, I do not think inspectors would be back in Iraq today.

The military build-up in the Gulf has to be seen in that context. If Deputy Gormley is not prepared to say that Kofi Annan has blood on his hands, he should not claim I do when I say the same thing.

We have all heard what the President of the United States had to say in Washington yesterday. Even those who disagree with him should be able to recognise his determination. War is avoidable but the plain fact, evident to all except the leadership in Baghdad, is that Iraq will no longer be allowed to evade its disarmament obligations. Anyone, however well intentioned or motivated, whose positions have the effect of encouraging the Iraqi leadership to believe it can evade its disarmament obligations serves only to increase the likelihood of war.

I expect arms inspectors to be given more time to test the willingness of the Iraqi authorities to co-operate fully and proactively with them. We consider that they should be given as much time as they reasonably consider to be both necessary and useful. It is clear that the inspections will not go on forever in the absence of progress, nor was this envisaged. It should be for the Security Council to make a determination as to whether the exercise continues to be worthwhile. It is for Iraq to respond truthfully, effectively and promptly.

The Iraqi leadership pretends it can do nothing to stop an attack. This is not true. Saddam Hussein still has time to defuse this conflict by accepting the rule of law and accounting for his extraordinary discrepancies in the record of Iraq's weapons holdings. It is time for him to end the evasion and special pleading, if not for the sake of the United Nations, for the future and well-being of his people.

That was a disgraceful and despicable argument for war.

It is an argument for peace.

With the permission of the House, I wish to share the last three minutes of my time with Deputy Breen and I hope I will be given injury time for the overrun.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

When Resolution 1441 was agreed by the United Nations Security Council, including Ireland, few voices, if any, were raised here against multilateralism, that is United Nations solidarity. The difficulty I have with the motion before the House is that it makes no mention of multilateralism, that is approved UN action against the Iraqi regime. In his paper, Iraq, Consequences of a War, Paul Rogers of Bradford University sets out the possible consequences of a war with Iraq for the civilian population. The paper, which was forwarded to Members by Trócaire, is graphic and horrifying. No Member of this House wants to see such consequences.

The way to prevent such consequences in Iraq or anywhere else is to have good order and democratic institutions whose authority is respected and upheld. The UN, with all its faults, is such an institution. We cannot expect others to be bound by UN resolutions if we, in turn, will not be bound by them. Eleven million people signed a petition in Britain in the 1930s seeking appeasement of Hitler. The number of people who support or oppose an issue does not indicate the rightness or moral worth of such an issue. If the UN passes a new resolution authorising attack against Iraq we in Dáil Éireann must have our say as to whether we will authorise the use of facilities here for such an attack. Let us be aware, therefore, that we cannot have it both ways. The day may be coming when we will be asked to decide.

If, however, unilateral action by the United States supported by Britain is taken, I have no hesitation in proposing that Dáil Éireann denies facilities such as refuelling and overflight. This brings me to the current use of Shannon Airport. Much has been made of US soldiers bringing arms and weaponry with them via Shannon. Is this really relevant?

Yes, it is.

Would it be any different if the soldiers came through Shannon only to be reunited with their weaponry at their Gulf destination? If there is an argument for preventing troops from using Shannon, it should apply regardless of whether they have weapons.

Hear, hear. Is the Deputy suggesting that as a policy?

The Government's usual doublespeak on this matter has been appalling. If US troops go to the region, they may have the effect of preventing war or Saddam Hussein may get or be given the message by his own people. Alternatively, if the UN sanctions attack against Iraq, those troops may be used to carry out a UN mandate. We will certainly not be volunteering to carry out that UN mandate. What is the message to Saddam Hussein? Have we not read Dr. Hans Blix's comments, as reported in Tuesday's edition of The Irish Times which states:

Iraq does not accept UN disarmament. Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs. There are strong indications that Iraq has produced more anthrax than declared. There is evidence that Iraq has weaponised VX nerve gas.

There is no mention in the motion this evening about those quotes from Dr. Hans Blix.

Speaking in the Dáil on 23 October 2002, I said:

The attitude taken by the United Nations towards the Iraqi dictatorship on its activity is one of the most important items on the international security agenda and may well become the most important. As the attitude of the public on the first Nice treaty referendum has shown, it is no longer acceptable for the Government to make decisions of such vital importance without the authority of the people as expressed in the Oireachtas and, specifically, in Dáil Éireann, given the role which Bunreacht na h-Éireann reserves to the Dáil.

I went on to set out the key five measures of concern:

First, unilateral action against Iraq by any state is not acceptable. Action, if taken, must have multilateral support and must be authorised in the appropriate way through the UN Security Council. I was alarmed to read recently in a survey that a sizeable proportion of the Irish population is not only against unilateral action, but is also against multilateral action, even if duly authorised through the United Nations. This is an untenable position for Ireland to hold.

No, it is not.

I stated that Ireland should support a UN resolution in relation to weapons inspections in Iraq. That has been adopted as Resolution 1441. I said:

If this resolution is not adhered to Ireland should participate in the debate on a further resolution, setting out the action to be taken by the UN to meet such failure. We cannot have it both ways and this approach will allow us to explore, to the maximum extent possible, all other avenues before considering the authorisation of military intervention.

The second point I made was in relation to independent verification. I said:

I was interested to note the Blair dossier on Iraq which was presented in September to the British Parliament. That dossier contained some information that was already in the public domain and made various claims. These claims include that Iraq: continues to produce chemical and biological agents, has military plans for the use of chemical weapons and has command and control arrangements to use them; has tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons, has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa – despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that would require it – has recalled specialists to work on its nuclear programme and has constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable of reaching parts of the EU. These are British claims and must be treated with some caution but if they are correct and can be verified they are of the first concern.

The aluminium tubes have been proved to be fake.

I continued:

The concerns being expressed by the US and British Governments are grave. To assist the Dáil in any consideration we may have to make in support of Ireland's stand at the UN Security Council, the Government should seek to independently verify the claims being made and make such independent verification available to Dáil Éireann. The sources for such independent verification could be the common foreign and security resources of the EU; its support structures and information gathering facilities; the United Nations itself, where our representatives have access to representatives of all countries, large and small; our resident embassies abroad; and non-governmental organisations and churches which have their own network.

The key question for Europe now is whether it decides its response on the basis of co-operation or otherwise with the US unilateral action or whether we are prepared to take a role as a regional organisation in contributing to world security under the auspices of the United Nations.

The third point I made was that we must make it clear that we stand with civilised states against demagogues and dictators. In particular, we must remember the enormity of what happened on 11 September 2001 in the United States and the ongoing campaign of terrorism, as demonstrated in Yemen and Bali, and perhaps attempted more recently in London.

What about state terror?

Terrorism can only be reduced and eliminated if the injustices off which it feeds are tackled and ended. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs has set up a group under David Begg, the general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to look at this issue. I hope it will be a Presidency priority for us next year.

We must stand up against anti-Americanism. When we wanted US intervention on this island we got it. The United States played a major part in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement and in bringing peace to this island. It has over the years welcomed our emigrants and its businessmen have invested heavily in our country, providing much employment. I am not suggesting that we should be beholden to or blinded by the US, nor am I suggesting that we should be bought by it. However, we should be fair in our assessment.

Srebrenica was not sorted out by the neutral countries, such as Ireland, or even by the EU; it was sorted out by NATO, led by the US while cowardly, self-serving European and Irish politicians spoke in the most hypocritical and unpardonable language imaginable.

Hear, hear.

Not even the atrocities of Srebrenica moved them from their self-serving and self-satisfied outpourings. They asked where the crowd was going and how they could get ahead of it faster than anybody else.

The fourth point I made was that we need an independent assessment of Ireland's and Europe's security and defence needs. This will not come about as a result of courageous leadership in this House because we have, in the main, been cowed into outbidding each other by eulogising neutrality to the advantage of politicians while denuding the people of even the most basic capacity for self-defence.

Prior to 11 September 2001, the American public was quite cosy about the fact that its internal flights lacked any form of real security. It found out to its horror it had to pay for it. We are similarly cosy about our neutrality. However, unlike other neutral states, we are not prepared to defend our neutrality and therefore we are probably the least-defended state in Europe. If we knew a plane was taking off from anywhere within or without our jurisdiction and was to be used to target either a facility within the State or a facility outside it, such as Sellafield, which would have disastrous consequences for us all, we would not have the capacity to deal with it, even if we had notice in advance. We are soon to have the second highest income per capita in an EU with 27 members but our Government has failed to do its first duty, namely to provided for the security of its citizens. That is the issue we should be debating tonight. An appalling lack of leadership has been demonstrated.

I called on the Government to appoint a committee of wise persons to examine independently the security needs of Ireland and Europe and to report directly to the Dáil, not the Government. Such a committee should examine the role Ireland should play as one of the architects in bringing about a security architecture in Europe which meets our concerns and needs. We have been running away from this issue for far too long. It is an issue of urgent public policy and concern and should be addressed without further delay.

The European Union should consider what its contribution should be to Iraq when, at last, it is freed of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people were forced in recent months, in a so-called referendum in which they had to show their votes publicly, to fully endorse Saddam Hussein. Is this the action of a free people? The three main elements of Iraqi society – Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and Kurds – are kept together within the Iraqi borders by a mixture of cajoling and oppression. Succession from any state has serious implications for neighbouring states. Succession from Iraq could have serious implications for Turkey and Iran and other parts of the region.

The EU is already heavily involved in the Middle East and is trying to bring about a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. It should now be examining ways and means to assist Iraq in the event that Saddam Hussein falls. That should not be left to the Americans and should be well under way.

I hope that the five points I set out last October will be and have been given consideration by the Government and that when the time comes, as it likely will, for a decision to be made by Ireland on the role of the UN in Iraq, we will be in a position to make an informed one based on reason, good judgment and the rule of law. All we have had so far are statements on Iraq. We need to be able to question our Government so our deliberations and decisions are informed. I have repeated the five points I made last October because I want to remind the Government of Fine Gael's concern. Furthermore, what has the Minister done to address these concerns? What information and advice does he have for the House?

I call on the Government to respond to my five points. It has had three months notice. I want the Minister to make himself available for a question and answer session so these issues will be addressed in the House. These are matters that run to the heart of the constitutional role of Dáil Éireann. Fine Gael has set out in the motion before the House the issues it believes must be addressed by the House.

I was more than surprised by the last point in the Minister's amendment, which seems to indicate that he is moving away from the multilateralist policy he has been espousing in recent months and is open to asking this House to support unilateral action. That support will not be forthcoming from my party.

I thank Deputy Gay Mitchell for sharing his time. As the Member of this House who resides closest to Shannon Airport, I have a special interest in what has been happening there. I am totally against war, as is the majority of people in Ireland and the US. However, the refuelling of military and commercial flights has been part of Shannon Airport's business for many years. This is because it is located on the eastern Atlantic seaboard, and refuelling has helped build up our airport and the local economy to what it is today. About 40% of the airport's business is depending on refuelling.

I accept that there has been a substantial increase in US military flights in recent times, but 35 other countries have had military aircraft refuel in Shannon in 2001. This is a very complex issue for the people of Clare and the surrounding areas and it is not as straightforward as people claim. Stopping the US military planes refuelling, as some people demand, will not solve the prob lem. Sixty percent of the industries in the Shannon free zone are American. This was brought to my attention by the many phone calls I have had from constituents whose livelihoods depend on the jobs provided by these companies.

Deputy Joe Higgins will give them jobs.

One should also look at the potential damage this could do to US-Irish relations. We must recognise the good work done by former President Clinton in the Northern Ireland peace process. I agree that the Americans should abide by the air navigation Acts. I believe the Minister, Deputy Cowen, should have instructed US commercial carriers to comply with Irish law much sooner than he did.

I am worried by the many breaches in security in Shannon Airport in recent times and as late as this morning when €500,000 worth of damage was done to a United States aircraft. I condemn this, as should every Member of the House, because if we do not we are encouraging others to do damage as well.

Would the Deputy condemn it if it happened in Farranfore?

Furthermore, I am delighted the Minister has said he will improve security at Shannon Airport because that is what is needed. Last week we were informed of 15 people who breached security at a US military base in England. While security cannot be fully guaranteed, I suspect that it will be increased at the airport. Transferring refuelling facilities to another European location will not prevent the anticipated war on Iraq. What is happening at Shannon Airport is not breaking the UN resolution. Every effort must be concentrated on giving the UN inspectors extra time in Iraq and to push the Americans into co-operating under a UN mandate. The EU can play a very important role in preventing a war. Shannon must not be used as a pawn.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share