Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Feb 2003

Vol. 561 No. 1

Foreign Conflicts: Statements.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):

Last Saturday Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, focused everyone's thinking when he said "War is always a human catastrophe – a course that should only be considered when all other possibilities have been exhausted, and when it is obvious that the alternative is worse." He went on to say "We all – and first and foremost the leaders of Iraq itself – have a duty to prevent it if we possibly can." In the course of the same address, Kofi Annan stated that there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the Security Council. He emphasised, as he did when the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 last November that "if Iraq fails to make use of this last chance and continues its defiance, the Council will have to make another grim choice. The Council must face up to its responsibilities" He then stressed that the Security Council "always does so best and most effectively when its members work in unison."

The position set out by Kofi Annan is entirely consistent with the position taken by the Government from the outset of the current stand off. In a few days' time the Security Council will hear a report from the chief weapons inspectors on steps Iraq has taken to disarm. In considering these reports, the Council may need to take deep and serious decisions if they show that this response falls short of what is required.

Resolution 1441 decided that Iraq was already in material breach of its obligations under earlier resolutions. Despite this, it afforded Iraq a final opportunity to come into compliance. Iraq was required to provide an accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its weapons programmes. Any false statement or omission, together with failure to co-operate, would constitute a further material breach and would be reported to the Council for assessment.

The resolution also decided that Iraq should provide the arms inspectors with unconditional access to sites and persons. It directed the heads of the arms inspection teams to report immediately any interference or failure to comply. The Council was to convene immediately on receipt of such a report. The resolution then recalled that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. The resolution did not, however, provide automatic authorisation for military action; rather, did it deliberately place the threat of serious consequences in the context of the circumstances surrounding the reconvening of the Council.

At the same time, it did not specify that a further resolution was required to authorise the use of force. This would simply not have been acceptable to either Britain or America and given their veto powers, it was simply 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.

Last summer some said that a unilateral military strike against Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom without reference to the United Nations was imminent. This did not happen. Instead, President Bush brought the issue back to the United Nations. I warmly welcomed that step for which the majority of members on the Security Council, including Ireland, strongly argued.

After lengthy and intensive debate, in which Ireland took an active and constructive part, agreement was reached on resolution 1441. This left the issue firmly within the framework of the Security Council. This is where Ireland wants to see the issue dealt with and where any further decisions should be taken.

Resolution 1441 also offered the best prospect of achieving our three principal objectives. These are to obtain Iraq's voluntary compliance with its disarmament obligations; to avoid a military conflict; and to uphold the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The first objective is disarmament and this is the key to peace. If this is done, there will be no cause for war. In April 1991 the Security Council adopted resolution 687 requiring Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. Some 12 years passed during which Iraq has not made the effort to comply. On the contrary, Iraq has used every means at its disposal to conceal its weapons, to obstruct the arms inspectors and to thwart the will of the international community. This is a regime which launched two wars in the past and has used poison gas against its neighbour and its own people.

The second objective is to avoid a military conflict. We absolutely believe that force should be used only as a last resort when every other possibility has been tried and failed. No one can have any illusions about the consequences of conflict. Nobody in this House or in this country wants to see a war take place. As firm advocates of the United Nations, we all want to see Iraq comply, as required by Security Council resolutions, so that this matter can be settled peacefully.

The overriding purpose of the United Nations is to prevent conflict but it also faces up to the reality that the use of force may sometimes be necessary. As Kofi Annan consistently points out, the UN founders were not pacifists. Chapter seven of the Charter empowers the Security Council to decide on the measures needed to remove any threat to the peace.

We have made very clear our hope that the Security Council would not be placed in a position where it would have to contemplate such a decision, but Iraq must realise that it cannot repeat its mistakes of January 1991 when it tried to deceive and outwit the United Nations.

The third objective is to preserve the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. Ireland has always been a totally committed supporter of the system of collective security, with the United Nations and the Security Council at its very centre. It is now up to Iraq to discharge its obligation under Article 25 of the Charter whereby all UN members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

As the UN Secretary General has emphasised "All countries have a clear interest as well as a clear responsibility to uphold international law and to maintain international order." We accepted that commitment as long ago as 1946 when we applied for UN membership.

The Government has spoken out and used its influence at every opportunity, in every forum and in all its meetings and contacts to urge the need for a peaceful solution. It has insisted that all means short of force must be tried, and that force may be used only as a very last resort. It has repeatedly warned of the dangers which would inevitably result from military conflict. It has called attention to the threat of large scale loss of life, casualties and human suffering. It has pointed to the risk that conflict could destabilise a region which is already volatile. It has pointed out that extremists and terrorists would seek to exploit growing tensions between the Moslem world and Europe and the United States. It has spoken of the possible disruption of economic growth. It has laid particular emphasis on humanitarian concerns, as it always has in such circumstances. It has sought and obtained confidential briefing from the UN Secretariat on the extensive plans it is making to deal with a possible humanitarian crisis. It maintains regular contact with the key UN relief agencies and is ready to take part in a humanitarian conference on Iraq to be held in Geneva on 15-16 February at the initiative of the Swiss Government.

Last week I conveyed these views to President Bush's special envoy on Northern Ireland, Ambassador Richard Haass when he visited here. It is our strong view that the inspections should continue as long as the inspectors and the Security Council consider that they serve a useful purpose. At the same time, we recognise that the inspections cannot continue for ever. The question of increasing the number of inspectors has been raised but, as Hans Blix has pointed out, the real issue is not the number of inspectors but whether Iraq is willing to co-operate actively with them.

The report delivered by Dr. Blix to the Security Council on 27 January was disturbing and raised a number of serious questions. In particular, he conveyed that Iraq had not come to a genuine acceptance of disarmament and was not co-operating satisfactorily on substance.

Dr. Blix set out a whole series of areas where the Iraqi declaration on its weapons programmes was incomplete or unsubstantiated. The Iraqis, for instance, were known to be in possession of well – documented quantities of weapons. It is clearly up to Iraq to produce evidence to back its claim that it has destroyed these weapons and not for the inspectors to prove the contrary. Among the many discrepancies Dr. Blix listed were 6,500 chemical bombs, holdings of VX nerve gas precursors, and quantities of anthrax.

It is deeply worrying that Dr. Blix has reported that Iraq is not prepared to co-operate sufficiently on the substance of the issues with the inspectors. Regrettably, the regime in Baghdad seems to respond only to the threat of military action. For that threat to be credible, it has to be real and visible. Kofi Annan reinforced this point when he distinguished between pressure and the actual use of force – as he put it "there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the pressure has been effective. Without that pressure, I don't think the inspectors would be back in Iraq today." This thought was also voiced by Hans Blix when he said "that diplomacy needs to be echoed by force sometimes, and inspections need to be backed by pressure." The military build up in the Gulf has to be seen in that context.

Dr. Blix and Dr. EI Baradei were in Baghdad over the weekend. They report that some progress was made, which is welcome, but much more is needed. We all hope there will be further major progress in the remaining days. Ireland has repeatedly stated its view that if Iraq continues with non-compliance, a second Security Council resolution should be adopted. The arguments as to whether a second resolution is a legal necessity are a distraction from the real point. The compelling political reality is that a second resolution will signal the unity and resolve of the international community and the clear legitimacy of any subsequent military action.

The report which Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei will make to the Security Council on Friday will be crucial to all further consideration in that forum. It will be equally central to our consideration at EU level on Monday. This will begin with a meeting of foreign Ministers and continue that evening at Head of State and Government level. We, as a Union, will have by Monday, individually and collectively, to weigh up the chief inspectors' statement. This will be a difficult and awesome challenge. No assessment of the way forward can or should be made until the facts are available. It is not a question of avoiding our responsibilities, but of treating with the utmost seriousness one of the most important documents to come before the Security Council of the United Nations.

On Friday and over the week-end the Government will be engaged in studying the chief inspectors' report and will be in active contact with our EU partners. The objective of our meeting on Monday is to try to form a common position on the way forward, based on the chief inspectors' report. It will not be easy, however, and may well not be possible. There are, unfortunately, openly different positions at this stage, including between the EU representatives on the Security Council. I am equally concerned about the space that has opened up between many in Europe and the United States, which is in no one's interests. There is also much that unites us. We must not forget that during our term on the Security Council, all members, including Syria, voted unanimously in favour of Resolution 1441. There is total agreement on what Iraq has to do to meet its obligations. It must disarm, and it must do so proactively. A united Security Council has conveyed this message. The Arab League has done so, as have Iraq's neighbours. It has been clear that, in the absence of compliance, the Security Council will have to, as Kofi Annan said, assume its responsibilities.

Finally and crucially, during his address at Williamsburg on 8 February last, the Secretary General said, "There is also universal confidence in the two chief inspectors, Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei." It is around their report next Friday that a consensus should be crafted. This inevitably, as with any fine political judgment, will require a degree of compromise and flexibility all round, while being anchored in the reality that Resolution 1441 was not and cannot be a mandate for endless excuses and prevarication.

After the inspectors report again, the Security Council, in particular, carries an immense burden of responsibility. It must in the immediate future seek to reach a common understanding on the answers to three questions. What precisely does Iraq now have to do to meet the demands of the council? How long does it have to do it and how will the Security Council discharge its responsibility if Iraq does not comply? It is in all our interests, including Ireland, Europe, the United States and the United Nations, that a consensus on these points is reached following Friday's report.

As we did during our term on the council, the Government will play its full part in the effort to forge that consensus, both in Brussels on Monday and thereafter.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

Today we debate the crisis on Iraq as preparations for war intensify, the inspectors prepare to report again to the UN Security Council and the division between European and American attitudes to the crisis deepen, as exemplified in the decision by Germany, France and Belgium to veto the reinforcement of Turkish defences by NATO forces.

As the time of final decision approaches, it is time for the Government to clearly spell out its policy on the crisis. I listened carefully on Sunday to the Minister for Foreign Affairs speak at length on the central issue. Does the Government believe a new UN resolution is necessary prior to any unilateral or multilateral action against Iraq? In the event of no such resolution being forthcoming, will the Government oppose any such action and refuse overflight and refuelling activities to those engaged in any such actions.

The Minister at the outset of his speech quoted Kofi Annan who emphasised after the council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 last November that, "If Iraq fails to make use of this last chance and continues its defiance, the Council will have to make another grim choice." Is that the Minister's position also, because it seems his position has changed, and continues to change, from supporting only multilateral action to leaving open the possibility of recommending to this House that we might support unilateral action.

The Minister pointed out on Sunday that Resolution 1441 includes the provision whereby failure by Iraq to comply with the provisions of the resolution would lead to serious consequences, and so it should. However, it is for the Security Council, not Britain or the United States acting alone, to decide what these consequences should be. Saddam Hussein has undoubtedly flouted UN resolutions over the years and only now, under enormous and welcome pressure from the United States, it appears the inspectors may be making progress. We must await their report on Friday and, in the meantime, take no precipitous action. I welcome the veto by Belgium, France and Germany of any NATO action for now. At least they show they have a capacity to think for themselves, even though they are NATO partners with the United States.

The pressure must be maintained on Iraq to comply with the UN resolution. I accept it is not possible to maintain the enormous pressure now deployed indefinitely. I share the Minister's concern in that regard. I believe that when we look at the destruction and death a war would bring, we can surely wait a further two weeks after Friday for a further inspectors' report. I am not convinced the German-French plan for long-term intensified inspection will work because it seems that without imminent threat of war, Iraq may return to its previous policy, perhaps its continuing policy, of lies and deception. At least I acknowledge that the German and French are trying to put forward other ideas for consideration. If the reports from Baghdad in the past 48 hours are true and the regime is now more willing to co-operate, the inspectors should prepare a short final list of demands based on Resolution 1441 and demand final conclusive answers within two weeks. In particular, the inspectors must be given clear evidence of the fate of Iraqi stocks of chemical and biological weapons which it held as recently as 1998.

It is time for clear thinking and actions. Those who say this is a key element for the credibility of the UN are correct, but not perhaps in the way they mean. Credibility does not come from merely following the lead of the body's strongest member, the United States. The Security Council must ensure that Resolution 1441 is complied with and, if not, it should be prepared to implement the serious consequences mentioned in the resolution. However, the Security Council should reach that view in its own time, based on the assessment of its inspectors rather than on fine dossiers, filled with old magazine articles and postgraduate thesis. The Security Council cannot deliberate indefinitely, but if, as I expect, the inspectors' report on Friday seeks more time, they should be given a further two weeks. The Government should stop its equivocation on this issue. It should articulate in a clean manner its opposition to unilateral action and indicate it supports the idea of giving the inspectors some limited additional time should the inspectors think that worthwhile.

I want on behalf of Fine Gael to be clear on this debate. We have for months outlined the core elements of what we believe should be the Irish approach to this crisis. There should be opposition to unilateral attacks against Iraq. Only multilateral action supported by the UN should be considered and prior Dáil approval for Irish refuelling or overflight facilities should be sought if multilateral action is authorised by the United Nations. Independent verification should be sought in relation to US and UK reports on Iraq's weapons stock, as distinct from the inspectors' reports. Every proactive step possible should be taken to show that this State stands with civilised, democratic states and against demagogues and dictators.

Ireland's security and defence needs should be re-assessed. I will repeat time and again, as I do not hear it being raised in any other quarter, that I am extremely concerned about Ireland's ability to defend itself if it leaves itself open to attack or retaliation. The self-serving behaviour of politicians in this House has left this country outside a military alliance. The Defence Forces are not equipped to adequately secure the State, which should be the first duty of the Government and the Parliament. I am extremely concerned about this issue.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council should be asked to consider the contribution the European Union will make to stability and prosperity in Iraq after Saddam Hussein. I will return to this matter if I have the opportunity. The Government should raise the alarming concerns expressed by Dr. Hans Blix in relation to unanswered questions concerning the possession by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. It should unequivocally condemn the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

While Fine Gael clearly opposes unilateral action, it realises that multilateral action, authorised by the United Nations, may be needed quite soon. My party will consider supporting such action if it is needed and if it has UN authorisation. I hope, even at this late hour, that war can be avoided. Following Friday's report by the inspectors, the EU leaders should issue a statement spelling out the Union's view that time is running out for Iraq if it is to avoid the serious consequences of its failure to comply with UN Resolution 1441. I hope such a statement will be issued after next Monday's meeting, which was mentioned by the Minister, as it is necessary to ensure the Iraqi regime does not doubt it is running the risk of war. I do not underestimate the difficulty involved in agreeing a text, but I believe it is worth the effort. The Union cannot allow itself to be paralysed due to internal differences and thus sidelined at this crucial time.

Actions taken or not taken in the days ahead may have consequences in years to come. It is time for the Government to end the double-speak and to show leadership. It is all very well to campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council, but we have to face our responsibilities, even as a country with the limited power of a small EU member state that is no longer on the Security Council. It is time for clear leadership.

I am concerned that the Minister mentioned in his speech that there have been discussions with the UN in relation to the humanitarian aid that may be put in place in Iraq in the event of war, possibly after the departure of Saddam Hussein. I have said in this House that the European Union, as the biggest donor of humanitarian aid in the world, should make similar provisions. It should have put in place a long time ago a plan to assist Iraq after Saddam Hussein. The EU should ensure that instability does not become widespread in the region. There will be serious implications, for example, if the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish communities decide to break away from Iraq.

We should take account of the real concerns expressed by UNICEF, which has graphically related to individual Members of the House the terrible things that have happened and are happening in Iraq. I have spoken with representatives of UNICEF at some length. Each Iraqi child suffers about 14 episodes of diarrhoea each year as a consequence of water problems and malnutrition and 70% of child deaths result from the illness. It is difficult to believe that one quarter of children are malnourished in a country that had a problem with child obesity until the recent past. The infant mortality rate in Iraq is two and a half times greater than it was in 1990.

Certain Members of the House believe that the UN should take responsibility for the problems I have mentioned, but it is time that we stopped equivocating on the matter. Saddam Hussein is running a police state. People are terrified to speak against his regime unless they get the opportunity to do so outside Iraq. There are serious problems there – people are stockpiling kerosene and one third of the population is destitute. It is a little extreme that Members of the House, by implication or statement, claim that the turnaround in the fortunes of what should be a prosperous nation is the fault of the West, the UN or the US. It is wrong to attribute it to anybody but Saddam Hussein. There are dreadful problems in Iraq, including the fact that a blind eye is being turned to the illegal trade in Iraqi oil, which has implications for the economies of Syria and Turkey. Important economic implications for countries in the region like Iran arise not only from the sanctions and the treatment of the people of Iraq by the regime there, but from the war we are possibly facing.

When the Minister goes to the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting and accompanies the Taoiseach to the European Council meeting on Monday, could he raise the question of humanitarian aid? The EU should put in place a policy to assist the region, so that UNICEF is not left to rely on its own resources. I understand that UNICEF has about $9 million, but war will cost it $39 million per month. If the situation deteriorates and a war sanctioned by the UN Security Council commences, Europe should assist countries on its doorstep like Turkey and Iran. In particular, it should help the people of Iraq to overcome the terrible humanitarian suffering they have endured and may endure during a war that may result from the actions of Saddam Hussein.

I would like to question the Minister for Foreign Affairs on some specific matters at a later date. As I said at the beginning, I am not clear whether the Minister stands with Kofi Annan's remarks about UN Resolution 1441. Does the Government stand behind Mr. Annan's comment that another resolution will be needed? The Security Council will have to make another grim choice if the resolution is not complied with.

Mr. M. Higgins:

I welcome the opportunity to speak during this debate. I want to raise a number of issues that directly arise from the Minister's speech. When the Minister addressed the House in a substantial speech on 23 October 2002 he referred, for example, to the sanctions and to UN Resolution 1409. I note that today's speech did not contain a single reference to sanctions.

I visited Iraq in 1990, 2001 and again earlier this year. The effect of the sanctions could be seen in the changes in Iraq between 1990 and 2001. I respect the opinions of various Members of the House, but it is important that we speak directly this afternoon. Nobody can defend the impact of the sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq. It is irresponsible to suggest that the problems faced by the people of Iraq are solely the responsibility of the Iraqi Government, although a great deal of responsibility lies with it. However, the greater responsibility lies with the community of nations, including this one, in the name of which so many children have died and continue to die needlessly every month. I have visited the UN 661 Committee in New York during a visit by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to the US State Department in Washington where we discussed the 661 Committee. The State Department in the United States came back and said that so many contracts were held up because it did not have enough people to handle them. It then announced a huge number of humanitarian contracts which were suddenly released. These were concerned with medicines which children need for leukaemia, black fever and a host of other illnesses.

The death of children is not a propaganda item. I have no doubt that civilians and children have been caught in the middle between the Iraqi Government and United Nations sanctions. There is not a single reference to sanctions in the Minister's speech yet the people to whom a war would be directed are those who have experienced sanctions for 12 years. The Iraqi Govern ment's food programme is admittedly regarded by the World Food Programme as one of the most efficient in the world, probably free from corruption and delivering a calorific intake per day of about 2,000. If there are perhaps 18 million people relying on it, have they not been driven through sanctions into total dependency on Saddam Hussein and his government?

That is what has been achieved but, much worse than that, Iraq has never produced its own food. There is no time in its history when it imported less than 70% of its food. Some 200 to 300 missiles are said to be aimed at Baghdad with its population of 4.5 million to five million people. They will knock out the food programme and we should be clear that the movement of 500,000 tons of food per month is needed to replace it. The largest amount that has been moved in one month is 100,000 tons between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Knocking out the food programme will impact on an entirely dependent population. The energy that will be knocked out will affect hospitals, clinics and the capacity to look after children. If that is the case – this is an issue with me whether it is popular or not – those who advocate the necessity of war under the United Nations charter are under an obligation to consider the consequences of war. There are two separate issues: Iraqi compliance and the instrument of war. There can be no picking and choosing from the UN charter; it opens with reference to saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war and goes on to say that no nation shall threaten another with war.

It cannot be argued in any internationally legal or consistent way that a Chapter VII or Article 42 resolution can ignore the principles in the preamble or the early articles of the United Nations charter. The Vienna treaty is there to clearly establish this. We must accept the charter. This House should be clear that the United Nations was established to prevent war not to facilitate it – an important principle. In that regard, it is interesting that in the Minister's speeches and interviews, when this extraordinary silence has been broken, we do not get answers that arise strictly out of international law and our commitments. One question concerns whether a pre-emptive strike would be illegal. The Minister should give us an answer to that question but, notwithstanding that, I will answer. It is illegal. There is no such notion as a pre-emptive strike in favour of collective security. There is no basis in the charter or international law for that.

I remind the Minister of something that has slipped away in this House in recent times – the Geneva Convention. For example, its fourth protocol gives explicit directions regarding the protection of civilians and children. There are three minimum directions with regard to children: they must be distinguished from combatants, no infrastructure affecting their welfare must be damaged and children who are dislocated from parents must be facilitated. In the long sections of that protocol is the notion that children in time of war must be given additional food and whatever else is required.

There is not a single line about the consequences of the instrument of war in the Minister's speech. What is the Government's position with regard to the principle of automaticity? I take the Minister's point that UN Resolution 1441 was concocted so that it could mean anything to anyone who wanted to take meaning from it. The Minister came to this House and said it was an alternative to war. Others state that far from being an alternative it is a preliminary to war. The Irish public are asking the Minister to be active in generating options that are alternatives to war and not to roll over.

I am not an apologist for the Iraqi regime but I feel it is time that some other facts were heard in the Minister's speeches. For example, within the much-quoted UN Resolution 978, which the United States and Britain say is a mandate for war, is the suggestion that compliance on removing weapons of mass destruction will lead to the abolition of sanctions. Does this House realise that, in April 1994, Mr. Warren Christopher unilaterally removed that suggestion from the negotiations with the Iraqi Government, thereby removing the carrot of compliance. Later on, Ms Madeleine Albright confirmed that the agenda had moved from the destruction of weapons of mass destruction to regime change. Let us hear all the facts.

I get weary of suggesting the distinction between being a critic of a US foreign policy that wants war and being anti-American. I will not do it today; people know my position. However, I find interesting a document that appeared on the www.newamericancentury.org website on June 3 1997 which contained the following:

American foreign and defence policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticised the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defence budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

It rolls on:

We need to increase defence spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernise our armed forces for the future; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.

They succeeded. In 2003, the United States defence budget was $964.1 billion – twice that of all of its allies combined and 25 times the $16 billion of the combined enemies list of Ronald Reagan and George Bush II.

I want to know why the Minister is so silent on other issues, and I think it interesting. He does not come to the House to speak about the impact of sanctions yet we are responsible for those sanctions which are in our name. I want to clearly establish the position of the Labour Party with regard to that. My party is opposed to the war as an instrument, is against sanctions and believes that diplomacy has not been exhausted. It favours initiatives such as the Franco-German one, but there are other possible initiatives including using groups of eminent persons. The Minister should, in our name, use our friendship with the United States and Britain to develop non-war options, which are still possible.

I noticed several interesting points on my visit to Iraq. Some 46% of the population are under the age of 15; the population of Baghdad is between 4.5 million and five million; and in 1991, 90,000 tonnes of explosives was dropped on Iraq. Jane's Defence Weekly – a great publication – is no doubt read by the Taoiseach because it must have informed his suggestion in Portugal that Mr. Colin Powell's statement was a model of clarity. I found that cheap little statement extraordinary. The Minister invites us to let the inspectors conclude their work, yet the Taoiseach makes a comment that turns out to be one of the best robberies of intellectual property in recent times.

I have outlined what will happen to the food programme for Iraq if war breaks out, with a population dependent on distributed food. I have also described what would happen in hospitals and the destruction that is occurring on a daily and monthly basis. This is not an academic point. The children of Iraq are the same as the children all over the world. While there are Iraqi responsibilities, the resolution 661 committee has worked in an irresponsible manner in what it has visited on the people of Iraq.

It is also relevant to take account of the new conservative agenda driving the new philosophy to which I referred. The most interesting aspect to the article appearing on the website www.newamericancentury.org, to which I referred, is the signatories, of whom there are approximately 26, including Donald Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush. The article envisages a new century for the United States in which there will be a combination of increased military budgets, a neo-liberal version of the economy and a cultural project. I do not suggest this is the view of the people of the United States, far from it. However, it is relevant to take it into account as a context in this issue. Even with compliance across so many different aspects, it provides an insight into why so many people still want war. That mindset for war must be opposed.

I have said previously that compliance with the United Nations resolutions is possible. The Minister should reconsider his speech of 23 October 2002 when he correctly, helpfully and intelligently said this issue is about weapons of mass destruction. He suggested that there is no mandate for anything else and he explicitly rejected regime change as a policy aim. What has happened to these views? If the Minister believed them then should he not now be an activist in seeking to avoid the tragedy of war?

The tragedy of war will not be confined to the civilians and children of Iraq. It will destabilise the region and sow centuries of hatred that can be avoided. The biggest deceit is to make a connection between war in Iraq and international terrorism. For example, there have been two attacks on the life of Tariq Aziz from two of the fundamentalist groups mentioned in the statement by Secretary of State Powell. This war will create a seed bed for hatred and terrorism, such as has never existed before. Silence in the face of this amounts to complicity and silence and inactivity is unforgivable. That is why the people are so much ahead of their Government with regard to the catastrophe we now face.

It is a long time since I became a Member of this House and I thought the day would never come when I would say that the Vatican has a more advanced position than the Government on this issue. It has made a number of welcome statements, including one where it said it found Secretary of State Powell's statement vague and unconvincing. It has also appealed to the international community to work for peace. The Pope has sent an envoy to Baghdad.

The Government is hoping that by keeping its head down it can keep right with the forelocking section that would like to have foreign policy run in terms of simple economic gain. It has thrown overboard the fine normative moral agenda it had when it canvassed votes around the world for membership of the Security Council. That is the shame it has drawn on itself. It has the opportunity to become active in preventing and opposing war, answering the questions, taking initiatives and assisting every non-military option. That is what the public seeks and it is what the Labour Party will support and demand.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

I wish to share my time equally with Deputies Gormley and Joe Higgins.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

This debate is long overdue and it is a disgrace that it has taken this long for the Government to allocate some of its time to allow a proper debate with questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on what has been correctly described as an international crisis. The world is on the brink of a catastrophic conflict. It will be a catastrophe for the people of Iraq and the Middle East while the longer term consequences for the rest of the world are as yet unknown.

What is the position of the Government? The public is hoping the Minister will clarify matters.

Mr. Cowen:

It is a matter for disarmament.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

While the Minister would like to kick the ball to touch we should stick to the issue. Disarmament is part of everything we must address.

Mr. O'Dea:

The Deputy seems to have difficulty with that issue.

Mr. Cowen:

It is about disarmament.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

The Minister gets very animated when facing a Sinn Féin Party spokesperson. He has very little to say when others speak.

Mr. J. Bruton:

They do not have private armies.

Mr. Cowen:

I will reply to the debate.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

What policies have the Government and its Fine Gael colleagues pursued? What position has it adopted on behalf of the State on the international stage? Next Saturday, people from all over the country will march in this city in what will be unprecedented numbers. They will be joined by countless millions of others who will mobilise in 316 cities throughout the world to make a clear and unequivocal statement. It will amount to perhaps the biggest one day global demonstration in our lifetimes.

I salute the peace campaigners who established their camp at Shannon Airport. By their vigilance they exposed what was happening. They revealed how the Government had concealed its co-operation with the build-up for war and they forced it to admit that both troops and arms were being facilitated and in huge numbers. They stirred the conscience of the people and for that we are grateful. A number of people, including some in this House, hysterically condemned them for damaging a military aircraft. Is it wrong to strike a military aircraft with a hammer in protest at an unjust war, but right for that aircraft to participate in the aerial bombardment of a city full of innocent civilians?

During the debate on war in the past number of weeks there have been the predictable taunts at Sinn Féin from the usual sources. The Minister participated in these and, as always, he was enthusiastically joined by Deputy John Bruton.

Mr. J. Bruton:

I have no time for the Deputy because he is a hypocrite in continuing to associate with an illegal army.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

I will listen to the Deputy and he should at least have the decency and the manners to allow me to continue uninterrupted. I wish to strongly assert my party's position by saying it is consistent with the proud tra dition of Irish republicanism, which we uphold, and with our central role in the peace process. From the days of Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen, the demands for an independent Irish foreign policy and Irish neutrality have been fundamental to the cause of Irish freedom. As a colonised people we have opposed empires and superpowers and have expressed solidarity with oppressed peoples throughout the world. That is the historic origin of Irish neutrality, an issue that will be visited again in this House on a daily basis in the coming weeks. It is not simply down to Eamon de Valera's position in the Second World War, as the Government often asserts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The five minutes have now concluded.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

I had asked the Chairman to give me one minutes notice. Do I not get any time in lieu due to the interruptions of the Minister and the Deputy?

I encourage people to continue to affirm and assert their support for Irish military neutrality and independent foreign policy, two essential pillars of Irish opinion that the Government has sullied time and again, and they should do so on the streets this Saturday.

Mr. Gormley:

I have only a few minutes so I will cut to the chase. I want to summarise the US position for the Minister: if the arms inspectors find weapons there will be a war; if they do not find weapons there will be a war; if there is a UN resolution there will be a war; if there is no UN resolution there will be a war. Does the Minister agree that there would be a war if the US had its way? Does he think this is a reasonable position? Did he communicate any of this to Mr. Richard Haass when he was over here? I doubt if he did.

I have listened to you, Minister, and you have frequently sought in this Chamber to outdo Mr. George W. Bush in bellicose rhetoric. Why have you assisted the American war effort? Why is there such an affinity between you and Mr. George W. Bush?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Gormley:

There is a clue to this affinity in Mr. George W. Bush's walk. The Minister may be familiar with this walk because it is the quintessential walk of a cowboy. There is now a clear identification between the cowboys in Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and the cowboys in the White House.

I believe the Minister's cowboy days are over because he has to answer a number of questions. He has to ask himself if he is closer to Boston than Berlin and if he supports the Franco-German proposal which makes sense, is under the auspices of the UN and will avert a full-scale war in Iraq. The Minister should be endorsing the proposal wholeheartedly. He should welcome the decision of our European partners – the French, Germans and Belgians – not to take precipitative action and thereby lessen the chances of a war. If the Minister rows in behind these positive proposals, it will increase the chances of peace.

I have said in the past that the Minister deliberately misled this House on 13 and 26 November and on 17 December 2002 when he told us he was in full compliance with Irish law. That is clearly not the case. He only signed the orders in question in January 2003.

In his speech the Minister made reference to Kofi Annan. Again, he has done this repeatedly. Like my colleague, Deputy Michael Higgins, I remind the Minister of what the Charter of the United Nations states under Article 2.4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." That is plain and simple. A pre-emptive strike is illegal and the Minister cannot justify it in any shape or form.

Like many, I am not anti-American. When I went to Iraq along with Deputy Higgins I met the Speaker of the House. I reminded him of his country's spending on arms and the persecution of the Marsh Arabs. This war cannot be justified. It will destabilise the entire region and lead to a humanitarian crisis. The Minister has already stated that we need to prepare for a humanitarian crisis, as if the war had already started. The war will sow the seeds of further terrorism. Has the Minister fully thought out the consequences of his actions or is it simply a knee-jerk reaction to row in behind the Americans on every occasion? I ask the Minister, even at the eleventh hour, to change his mind and back our colleagues in Europe. This is the only chance we have to avert full-scale war.

Mr. J. Higgins:

The moves by France, Germany and Russia to slow the mad stampede of the Bush and Blair regimes to launch a war on Iraq are hugely significant. It is absolutely incredible that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking on behalf of the Government today, did not even refer to these new circumstances. Why? It is because the Government is absolutely terrified of offending the US and some of the European powers. It wants to hide from taking any principled position on this question.

The opposition of France, Germany and Russia and their Governments is not because they have had a sudden conversion to moral virtue. France and Russia have substantial business dealings with Saddam Hussein's regime. They wish to protect these and are capable of acute cynicism in doing so. However, Russia, France and Germany recognise something more important, i.e. the mass opposition among the working class people of Europe to an attack on Iraq. The ordinary people of Europe have drawn clear conclusions about the present crisis. They know that the mania of the Bush regime to unleash the dogs of war has nothing to do with alleged weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein is boxed in and has as good a chance of hitting the United States with a pea-shooter as with whatever limited missiles he still has.

The ordinary people of Europe know that a war would not be to institute democratic rights in Iraq since the United States and Britain, the primary belligerents, continue to support and arm with weapons of mass destruction some of the most vile regimes that still besmirch the face of our globe, more than George Bush could possibly count up to. They know that the imminent war is to corral the second largest oil reserves for the future of US capitalism and to send a message to the huddled masses on our globe, particularly the poor of the Third World, that the 21st century will be the century of the United States empire and that it will set the terms in trade, military might and international politics.

Contrast the perception of the masses in Europe and their determination to stop the disaster of war with the utter craziness of the Irish Government. Its trembling subservience – that is all I can call it – to US foreign policy on Iraq inspires an analogy with a jellyfish. This is unfair to the jellyfish which, like the Government, may not have any backbone but at least have a sting.

The statements of the Minister and the Taoiseach over recent weeks have virtually invited Messrs. Bush and Blair to start the war. They have faithfully repeated all the old codology about the justification of slaughtering thousands of innocent people and laying waste to a nation because Saddam Hussein is allegedly hiding some of the arsenal which was given to him by the same people who now want to attack him and, incredibly, because he is fostering al-Qaeda in some way. A majority of the US media put this latter point abroad as propaganda. The Government continues to allow Shannon to be used as a launch-pad for war and refuses to say the facility will be withdrawn in the event of a unilateral strike. The Minister is silent because he does not want to break with United States policy.

I have no illusions about the ability of NATO or the UN Security Council to prevent a war. Should we be impressed if one of the permanent members, China for example, gives its blessing to a war? China still harbours in its Government the butchers of the youth of Tiananmen Square. Should we be impressed if Mr. Putin says in a few weeks that a war is permissible? Mr. Putin brutally and routinely crushes several ethnic and national minorities within his own country that want to have an independent voice.

For the Iraqi people the whistle of falling bombs will sound no sweeter if they bear a United Nations logo rather than that of the United States of America. To prevent a war, I look to the hundreds of millions of ordinary people in Europe, the Arab world and, crucially, in the United States who are standing up and saying that a war is not in the interests of humanity. It may be in the interest of a minority of the elite of the corporate sector of the armaments industry and of the leaders of the power blocs but the war should be stopped. On Saturday, people will turn out in their millions around the globe to bring that message home to the governments which, like ours, are still not hearing the message clearly enough.

Ms O'Donnell:

I wish to share time with Deputy Grealish with the permission of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms O'Donnell:

We find ourselves at a critical juncture in terms of foreign and security policy and major decisions will have to be made over the coming days and weeks. It is a very challenging time for Government and citizens during which we have important decisions to make as to how we want to play our part in this dilemma.

In all policy decision making areas there exists a hierarchy of values and principles and while many factors can influence our choices, they do not all carry equal weight. There are too often conflicts and dilemmas whereas decision making is only easy when there is a clear and overriding consideration involved. It is much tougher on policy and decision makers when different values and objectives pull us in divergent directions. Only those people who have never had to make responsible decisions in complex circumstances say that the issues involved are simple. Even in this House, there are some who appear to believe that all of Irish foreign policy can be encapsulated in the neat and unassailable word "neutrality". They advance neutrality as the sole guide to complex foreign policy decisions and elevate it as the only principle and value that Ireland stands for. They fail to contemplate or question any development of the concept of neutrality as it applies to modern Ireland.

While there is a long history of neutrality in our foreign policy, it has by no means been our only value or principle since the foundation of the State in terms of the actions we have taken in difficult circumstances. The first foundation stone of Irish foreign policy is our constitutional mandate to favour the peaceful resolution of disputes, an integral aspect of which is our fundamental commitment to support and work with international institutions to resolve them. Everyone in this House recognises that the lead actor with regard to international security is the United Nations and its Security Council. The effective role of the UN and multi-lateral institutions connected or unconnected to it is central to our foreign policy. A further credo is our traditional commitment to the vindication of human rights and development, areas in which we have a strong profile and are held in high esteem by our peers and our development partners. We are leading donors in the field of development aid to poorer countries. We believe there is a human right to development and we work to realise that belief in practical ways. We work towards eradicating poverty and injustice in the world as well as towards building a fairer world order.

However, our foreign policy is also charged with the pursuit of the national interest and the understanding of the external environment in which we must work as part of the community of nations. Since 1973 we have been very important partners in the development of the European project, internally and externally, in terms of its shared fundamental aim of sustaining peace and prosperity on the European continent. Among these principles and values, we have a commitment to military neutrality. We are not party to any agreement with an automatic defence commitment, but instead reserve to ourselves the right to decide in each case how, where and when to deploy our defence forces. Military neutrality is just one consideration in our foreign policy approach and at this point in time it is not the primary principle governing our actions. Of the utmost importance in the context of the debate on Iraq is the principle of the peaceful resolution of disputes and the recognition of the UN as the only forum for ensuring international security. The UN not only gives clear legitimacy to armed action where necessary, it requires that the nations of the world respect fully its decisions in pursuit of international security.

An effective and respected United Nations is central to Ireland's foreign policy objectives. Our mission at the UN is respected for its diligence, professionalism, attention to fairness and its diplomatic skills in brokering compromise. Ireland's constitutional imperative for the peaceful resolution of international disputes and our diplomatic tradition since the foundation of the State is not served by a UN the authority and primacy of which is diminished by any member state. During the 1990s we saw the dangers of defiance of the UN from outside and of weakness from within. It was ordinary human beings and civilians who suffered most. We need look no further than the horrors of the Rwandan genocide to see the need for a decisive and interventionist UN. Members should remember the gross violations of human rights that went unchecked in the Balkans because the UN could not or did not discharge its mandate effectively and allowed itself to be mocked by Milosevic and his brutal regime. We should remember our shame when UN troops abandoned the ordinary people of Srebrenica to slaughter. Even the sceptics now agree that the armed intervention in Kosovo under NATO was effective, though it is not the way things should be done in future.

The background to our current angst about war and peace in Iraq is not just the atrocity of 11 September, it is also the lessons learned over the past ten years of the need for resolve and surefootedness in the pursuit of international security. These lessons were learned at the expense of the lives of millions of civilians in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and, after 11 September, North America. Since we align our foreign policy so closely with the UN we should be the strongest defenders of its effectiveness. In pointing to its past failures we must acknowledge that too often they were the result of the politics of inertia and tactical advantage among UN member states. In the 1990s we learned that effective multi-lateral action will not work if the major powers stand in the way. We are seeing similar tensions today among member states of NATO, the EU and the United Nations. I welcome the ferocity of democratic debate on this issue. We are standing at the precipice of an extremely important moment in our history and the more ferocious and robust the democratic debate around the world, the better will be the policy which is made.

The considerations I have outlined go to the heart of the policy decisions which will be made over the next few weeks and they are much more important than issues of who uses facilities at Shannon. Ireland's vision for the world is not pacifist or neutral, it involves upholding values and internationally recognised rights by getting states to work together through international organisations. That vision allows for the legitimate use of force under UN resolutions in pursuit of those aims. These are dangerous, testing times for political leaders and they are decisive moments for the United Nations. I urge the Minister, Ireland, its colleagues in the European Union and our friends in the United States of America and the United Kingdom not to go beyond the parameters allowed by the United Nations.

I share Deputy Michael Higgins' worry that there has not been sufficient talk about the humanitarian outturn of a possible attack on Iraq. I was recently at the UN for a briefing and it was very clear that the people working on the food for oil programme had their heads in their hands. They are aware that Iraq is on its knees from sanctions and that a huge percentage of the population relies on the oil for food programme which is now at a standstill. Everything depends on negotiation skills and I hope Ireland uses its traditional diplomatic talents to avoid the tragedy of war.

Mr. Grealish:

I thank Deputy O'Donnell for sharing her time with me.

The current crisis in Iraq has been discussed repeatedly in the House. This crisis has been long in the making and Iraq has spent 12 years ignoring and evading its obligations as a responsible member state of the United Nations. The heads of the UN inspection teams met with the Iraqi authorities last weekend and indicated that Iraq is prepared to take some steps to meet the demands of the Security Council. The inspectors will make another report to the Security Council on Friday and we hope to hear evidence that Iraq has finally agreed to engage seriously in the crisis, which is of its own making.

It is less than a week since the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, put before the Security Council the evidence which the US believes demonstrates that the Iraqi authorities have been systematically deceiving the inspectors about their weapons of mass destruction. Together with the inspectors' reports, this is disturbing. If the US has not proven Iraq to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt and neither has Iraq managed to demonstrate its innocence, in weighing up the evidence we must consider Iraq's past record.

Saddam Hussein's regime has a long history of developing and deploying prohibited weapons. Its history of concealment and deceit concerning these programmes is almost as long. In 1984, Iraq became the first country since the foundation of the United Nations to use internationally prohibited chemical weapons against an enemy, as part of its war with Iran. In 1988, Iraq used mustard and nerve gas against its own citizens when it launched a chemical attack on the Kurdish people. There can be no doubt that the Iraqi regime has demonstrated its willingness to acquire and make use of weapons which every other state has willingly renounced.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 left the international community with no alternative but to act decisively. The Security Council mandated the use of force in order to oblige Iraq to withdraw. It also put in place arrangements designed to ensure that Iraq would be disarmed of the prohibited weapons it had amassed.

Inspections of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction began more than ten years ago. The Iraqi regime has done everything in its power to delay and frustrate these inspections. As they progressed, it became quite clear that Iraq's efforts to acquire such weapons have been far reaching. In its dealings with the UN inspectors it has been determined to conceal the extent of its programme and to retain as much of its capacity as possible.

In addition to the chemical weapons which it has acquired and used, Iraq has sought to acquire both nuclear and biological weapons. Inspections succeeded in destroying much of these programmes and the underlying capacity within Iraq to bring them back into being, but many questions remain and there is much which Iraq has never accounted for.

In their report to the UN Security Council on 27 January, the arms inspectors set out their concerns about what still remains unanswered. Many of their questions have remained unanswered since 1998 and further fresh questions have arisen. These questions should not have come up. Iraq should comply with its obligations to provide a complete account of its arms stocks and weapons programme. If something was overlooked through honest oversight and mistakes, then the Iraqi authorities should have clarified it immediately once it had been raised by the UN inspectors.

There is still time for Iraq to face up to its obligations and comply fully with the demands of the Security Council. This means that Iraq must stop treating the inspection process as a negotiation and face up to the reality that the inspection process is an obligation which it must meet in full. There is no room for compromise in this matter. The use and the very possession of those weapons is a violation of international law. Iraq has never even admitted the crimes it has committed in using these dreadful weapons.

The time for minor concessions has passed. Only through full co-operation with the UN inspectors by Iraq is there a prospect of a peaceful resolution to this crisis. That is what everybody in this House wants to happen. Ireland worked effectively and constructively within the Security Council to ensure the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, which brought the issue back within the UN framework. In the week before that resolution was adopted there seemed to be a real risk that the United States and others would seek to take unilateral action. This risk was averted, however, and the international community is engaging with the crisis responsibly and collectively. This approach holds out the best possibility of resolving the current crisis without resort to the use of military force. The potential consequences of resorting to force have been repeatedly discussed here. No one wishes to see a conflict. The consequences for the people of Iraq, the wider region and the world in general are dreadful to contemplate and because of this the use of force must be a last resort.

Regrettably, however, it is plain to all of us that Saddam Hussein responds only to the threat of force. Iraq was placed under sanctions immediately after its invasion of Kuwait but those sanctions failed to compel Iraq to withdraw. The international community was finally forced to resort to military action. Sanctions have been maintained ever since to compel Iraq to meet other obligations, including disarmament. Despite the great suffering this has brought on the Iraqi people, sanctions were not sufficient to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with his obligations. It was only when the further pressure of a credible threat of force was added that the Iraqi authorities agreed to a resumption of inspections. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated, this has been acknowledged by the UN Secretary General and the head of the inspection teams.

From the outset, Ireland has wished to see the situation resolved peaceably. Sanctions were intended both to put pressure on Iraq to comply with its obligations and to prevent the importation of prohibited materials. The sanctions did not seek to impose restrictions on the importation of humanitarian supplies. Their actual implementation, however, involved a very undesirable result which Ireland has worked to remove. During our time on the Security Council we played an active role in efforts to reform the sanctions so as to minimise the effects on the Iraqi people while maintaining the necessary pressure on the Iraqi regime. Under the arrangements now in place, Iraq is in a position to ensure that under the oil-for-food programme, essential food and medical supplies are available. Regretfully, the Iraqi authorities have often chosen to withhold co-operation even from those arrangements, with dire consequences.

Mr. J. Bruton:

There are two aspects of the debate to which I will refer before moving to my main point. The first is the issue of Irish neutrality. Neutrality has been advantageous for Ireland and there is no imminent requirement on us to change it. Making facilities available, in peace time, to the military of other countries is an important decision in itself but it does not necessarily compromise neutrality in wartime, once the facility is capable of being withdrawn.

The second aspect concerns the divisions in Europe. It would be entirely artificial if there were no divisions on this issue in Europe. The divisions between Governments reflect the divisions that exist among the peoples of all the states of Europe.

We should be wary of the visceral anti-Americanism of some. Just because America is all powerful, does not mean that America is wrong. We should also recognise that President George W. Bush is, in all probability, a good and moral man who is wrestling with an appallingly difficult choice. To acknowledge that he is a good and moral man is not, however, to say that he is necessarily right in the choices he is making.

It is said that to go to war against Iraq with the support of a second UN resolution would be all right, but to go to war without it would be wrong. That is not necessarily so. It is important to preserve the system of international legitimacy enshrined in a clear UN resolution, but the NATO war against Serbia over Kosovo did not have the backing of a UN resolution, and the international order did not collapse.

By focusing on the procedural question of a UN resolution, we allow ourselves to avoid facing the more profound question – would a war against Iraq, in the next month or two, be reckless or not? The issue is not simply one of right or wrong; there is no easy index one can use to say whether one war is right and another is wrong. The key elements to be considered are proportionality and unpredictability.

A war against Iraq in the next month or so would be out of all proportion with the actual threat posed by Iraq. The risks arising from such a war are far greater than the risks that would arise from postponing it for another six months or so, to see what can be achieved otherwise. There is no parallel with Hitler's Germany in 1938. Germany was a huge power at the centre of Europe, which actively threatened its immediate neighbours. Iraq is poor and does not threaten Europe or America in the same way. Iraq's immediate neighbours are not asking the west for help, in the same way that the Czechoslovakians sought the help of the west in 1938.

The other issue is unpredictability. Wars which begin for one reason usually end up being fought for an entirely different one. Who could even remember, by 1915, that the First World War had been started the previous August because of a disagreement between Austria and Serbia about extradition and extra-territorial jurisdiction in regard to terrorist offences?

The 1991 Gulf war, which I supported, is no guide to what will happen now. That war was fought in the open desert where air power was supreme. This one may be fought in the streets and alleyways of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul. The Russian experience in the city of Grozny is much more instructive about what might happen in this war, than is the war of 1991. Think of the tens of thousands who will die of typhoid, as bombs destroy all sanitation.

Of course, the morale of the Iraqi military may collapse. Saddam Hussein may be overthrown in the first days, but is that guaranteed? What will happen in other parts of the Middle East during those terrible days? Is there not a risk that events elsewhere in the Middle East might prove even more terrible than those in Iraq itself?

It is very important to discuss this issue without any sense of moral superiority or anti-Americanism. All the points I make about the imprudence of this war at this time are being made in America itself by loyal Americans. To criticise this war is not necessarily to criticise the notion that America should, in appropriate circumstances, act as the world's policeman; it is simply to question whether this particular policing action in these particular circumstances is appropriate.

It is a reality that American military power is overwhelming but this is not necessarily bad. America is a democracy and options are debated openly in democracy but democracies can also make mistakes. Saddam Hussein has only made concessions because of the threat of war. It is, therefore, reasonable to maintain the continuing threat of war against Saddam Hussein to guarantee that full disarmament is achieved, but is now the time to turn that threat into a reality or can more be achieved by maintaining the threat without exercising it yet?

The only circumstances in which Saddam Hussein is likely to use his chemical and biological weapons, if he has them, is if he is attacked, is desperate and has with no way out. It should be remembered he did not use these weapons in 1991 because he had a way out. To wage a war on a basis that leaves Saddam no way out is the best way of ensuring he will use his weapons of mass destruction. Statements about conducting war crimes trials in post-invasion Iraq increase the incentives for all the generals and elite military units to fight to the end using what weapons they have. Going to war now could be the only way of actualising the very threat that the war itself was supposed to avoid. That would be perverse.

It is argued that Saddam Hussein is the only leader who has used chemical weapons since World War I, in 1982 and 1988, but does that fact justify going to war now? After all the United States is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. The mere fact that the weapons were used in the past in different circumstances does not of itself justify a war in present circumstances. After all the war against Iraq is supposedly designed to "pre-empt" the use of such weapons. Even if one accepted this doctrine of pre-emption, one must ask why this particular threat needs to be pre-empted at this particular time. After all, there are 12 nations with nuclear weapons programmes, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons and 28 with ballistic missiles.

Let us not forget that deterrence has worked in the past. Why abandon the old doctrine of deterrence in favour of the new one, adumbrated by West Point, of pre-emption? Let us not forget that, for 40 years, the United States successfully deterred the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, two brutal and erratic rulers who massacred millions and who had not only chemical and biological, but also nuclear weapons. If deterrence worked in regard to them, why necessarily must it not work with Saddam Hussein?

What will happen when the war is over? Iraq is an entirely artificial state, created to fill a gap in the map by tired and indifferent western diplomats in the wake of World War I. How will it be kept together after the war? Will the Sunnis accept majority rule by the Shias? Will it become another Lebanon? Who will administer it?

The United States has linked its war against Iraq to the al-Qaeda threat. The al-Qaeda network has been seriously disrupted by the demise of its base in Afghanistan and by security services throughout the world, including our own. All that good work can too easily be undone. A war, launched by supposedly Christian powers, against a small supposedly Muslim country is likely to lead to the sort of flood of recruits to al-Qaeda that Bloody Sunday created for the Provisional IRA in 1972.

Mr. Sargent:

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Bruton:

I have been told that an American attack on Iraq would lead to two million demonstrators taking to the streets of Rabat in far away Morocco and to riots between Muslims and others in cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Surely this will only help al-Qaeda. We have all heard of Professor Huntington's book about the clash of civilisations. If that book has credibility, do we want to test its hypotheses so soon?

The world should stop and think. Another six months of intensified UN arms inspections in Iraq may not remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein but time is all we will have lost. The war option, if it is the only one, which I doubt, will still be available six months from now. So what, in God's name, is the rush?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

The Government needs to take a long, hard look at what it means in human terms to support the drive to war. The Minister needs to admit the consequences of allowing belligerents to use Shannon Airport, of eroding our policy of neutrality and his failure to use the opportunity of the UN Security Council chair to prevent the move towards war in the past year.

Does the Minister understand what Irish war complicity means as he is not willing to take direction from the Dáil or the people? This is not a debate as we still have a motion in front of us, despite a request for a debate. We do not have a position paper in front of us and, therefore, the Government and the Minister will have to bear responsibility for the outcome of the war that they have decided to facilitate.

Will the Minister take responsibility for the war's devastating impact on Iraq's 13 million children? Potentially, there will be hundreds of thousands of casualties among children who are at grave risk of starvation, disease, trauma and death because of the first war, the subsequent sanctions and the ongoing bombing raids. More than one million Iraqis, including 600,000 children, have died as a result of conditions created by economic sanctions. Such sanctions have taken the lives of more people in Iraq than weapons of mass destruction.

The Minister took cheap shots at me and my party.

Mr. Cowen:

The Deputy asked what was the view of the Government and I said we want disarmament. I answered his question. It was not about cheap shots. They are coming from the Deputy.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

I will continue, as is my right.

Mr. Cowen:

With more cheap shots

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Ó Snodaigh, without interruption, please.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

Perhaps the Minister will be as quick to take responsibility for this war when it happens. The Minister still has a chance to back the anti-war campaign. On Saturday, he and his party can join the campaign and bring along their banners to support the anti-war movement.

Mr. O'Dea:

Behind the Sinn Féin pacifists.

Mr. Sargent:

The Minister is fond of quoting Kofi Annan. He is on record as saying the sanctions against Iraq have not worked as a policy, yet the UK and the US object to the lifting of sanctions. It is little wonder that a climate of hatred is building up against the west that the cur rent aggressive noises are doing nothing to quell. Furthermore, giving equipment rather than money for oil means cash is not available to pay Iraqis and train them to rebuild their country.

There is no disarming of minds happening, whatever about disarmament in the Minister's litany of quotes. There is no disarming of the hatred that is there. According to UNICEF there will be 16 million people in need of food within weeks of a war breaking out. There will be further seedbeds of hatred against an international, illegal war. Does the Minister agree that military sorties over southern Iraq are illegal at the moment? They are not covered by any UN resolution that is in force. Does the Minister agree that the bombing of radar stations is illegal at the moment? Accordingly, will he require the American military to withdraw from Shannon airport as they are involved in illegal activities?

We in Ireland are a lucky people. What if the suspicions about Iraq hiding terrorists were to be transferred to this country? When the IRA were carrying out despicable acts, terrorising London, Guildford, Birmingham and Warrington, what if the British Government decided to operate sorties over this country because of suspicions that we were hiding terrorists? How can the Government sit there and expect the Iraqi people to tolerate that type of aggression against their country?

After 35 years of giving the two fingers to the resolutions of the United Nations there is no talk of Israel coming under that kind of sustained aggression. Ultimately this Government is responsible not just for causing widespread misery but also seriously impacting on the world economy which is clearly marked out by economists who warned about this war.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith):

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. As the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have stated on many occasions recently, the Irish people do not want war with Iraq. War inevitably means death, destruction and incalculable suffering. We are a peace loving people, without colonial baggage and have made a name for ourselves as humanitarians and peacekeepers of real substance. This reputation, largely due to the endeavours of our Defence Forces abroad, has been forged from within the United Nations. Our membership of the UN has made us formal members of the international community and as such strong supporters of the system of collective international security laid down in the UN Charter. This has been the position of successive Governments since Ireland joined the UN in 1955. We re-iterated this last year in our programme for Government where the primacy of the United Nations in promoting peaceful international relations is clearly set out. We regard to the UN Security Council as the guardian of international peace and security, and as a Government, it is our duty to discharge our obligations under the UN Charter to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. It is our firm belief that all who believe in an international order based on justice and law must recognise the authority of the Security Council and its decisions on behalf of the UN members. It is precisely through this mechanism that Ireland hopes direct military conflict can be avoided. We do not want war, and passionately believe that force should be the last resort to be employed, only after all other means have been exhausted. However, as members of the international community we can on longer stand by and watch Iraq's continuing contempt for the right-thinking world.

We would not be at this crossroads of potential conflict was it not for the persistent hostility which Saddam Hussein's regime has shown to the international community. Twelve years ago his megalomania cost his country thousands of lives and set it back years in economic and social terms. After the Gulf War in 1991, the Security Council of the UN sent in arms inspectors to ascertain the extent of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. To the horror of the world, it soon became apparent that the programmes to develop biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons were even more advanced than anyone had feared. Lest there be any doubt about Saddam's willingness to use them, we all remember the chilling pictures of the thousands of his own people massacred with these hideous weapons of mass destruction. Eventually the UN inspectors withdrew frustrated, with the clear impression that these weapons remained extant.

The economic sanctions imposed by the UN which followed have clearly not caused Saddam to disarm or stop his armament programmes. The sanctions, which the Security Council imposed with reluctance, have been used by the regime to exploit the suffering of their people and as a propaganda tool against the UN. For 12 years now Saddam has defied the international community, but finally patience has run out. In November last, Resolution 1441 was adopted by the Security Council. Ireland was a member at that time and participated actively in the discussions which led to this agreement. One last chance to give up its arsenal of death has been offered to Iraq. By co-operating fully with the returned arms inspectors, a military showdown which Iraq cannot win will be avoided. The international community can no longer allow the shadow of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction hang over the world. The stand-off can be ended and any threat of war lifted by Saddam instructing his agents to comply fully with the decisions of the Security Council.

Unfortunately, Saddam's record over the years does not give us grounds for optimism. He is a devious bully who would appear to be moved only when he is faced with a credible threat of imminent military force. This is the background to the military build-up that is taking place in the Gulf.

It is the Government's clear desire to avoid war. Full compliance with Resolution 1441 holds the key to this. Saddam must disarm forthwith. There is now no other realistic choice facing the Iraqi regime other than to comply with the decisions of the Security Council and indeed of the right-thinking world. The patience of the world has all but run out. Saddam must stop playing games now and even at this late stage allow Hans Blix and his team of inspectors to carry out their work in a comprehensive and full way. Recent days have given us some grounds for hope, as more positive signals have been emanating from Mr. Blix and his team. Although it is not clear if these signs of Iraqi willingness to improve co-operation are sufficiently substantial, it is hoped that his crucial report to the Security Council next Friday will at last show that the Iraqi regime is taking Resolution 1441 seriously.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Dea):

In 1991 when Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, the United Nations passed Resolution 687. That resolution solemnly stated that peace, stability and security could only return to the Middle East if Saddam Hussein surrendered all his weapons of mass destruction. Despite his agreement with that resolution and despite a number of subsequent resolutions, Saddam Hussein has continued to defy international law for the past 12 years and continued to treat these resolutions with contempt.

In November last, the United Nations passed Resolution 1441 which gave Iraq a final opportunity to disarm and threatened serious consequences if it did not disarm. There are not too many law breakers who are given a final opportunity to comply with the law after 12 years of defiance. The people who drafted Resolution 1441 did not define what was meant by serious consequences but I doubt if they had in mind the influx of another few inspectors into Iraq.

Despite the military build-up in the Gulf, Saddam Hussein is still refusing to comply with his obligations. There is an arcane debate at the moment as to whether or not he is in material breach of Resolution 1441. In my opinion he is in breach but whether he is or not, nobody can deny that he is in flagrant, brazen breach of Resolution 687 and all the resolutions that have flowed from it. The world is at a crossroads and we have a simple choice: compel Saddam Hussein to disarm, either voluntarily or otherwise, or take the path of least resistance and give more inspectors more time indefinitely. In my view the latter option is futile. I have no objection to a delay of a short period as mentioned by Deputies Mitchell and Bruton but this cannot go on indefinitely. Without the co-operation of the Iraqi regime, the inspectors have as much chance of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as one would have of finding a contact lens in a football stadium. Disarmament can only take place if the lead comes from the Iraqi authorities and so far they have failed to take that lead.

Deputy Bruton posed the question about how well deterrents worked in the past and why there has been a move from deterrents to pre-emption. The answer to that is very simple. There is one factor now which was not present in the past, the evolution of a global terrorist network with no forwarding address and therefore virtually immune from the threat of retaliation. The very existence of a global terrorist network makes the position of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of any tinpot dictator infinitely more dangerous now than at any time in the past.

It is irrelevant whether or not there is a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. If there was not a link in the past there could be one today or tomorrow. The very existence of these terrorist groups can be used by Saddam Hussein and his likes to attack the west rather than doing so themselves. That is why powers like the United States have moved from the doctrine of deterrence to that of pre-emption.

Mr. Stagg:

Does the Deputy support it?

Mr. O'Dea:

This is not Iraq. We can speak freely in the House. If the world now retreats from the situation the United Nations has adopted under Resolution 1441, the consequences for the United States, the United Nations and the European Union, both short and long-term, will be profound and far reaching. It will mean that the United States's allies and friends can no longer rely on it. It will mean that the enemy of western civilisation will no longer fear it and that chaos, proliferation and radicalisation will be the order of the day.

Look at the situation in North Korea. That will be replicated several times throughout the globe if western democracies now retreat. It is of paramount importance that any action to force Saddam Hussein to disarm is taken under the aegis of the United Nations. I am a committed multi-lateralist. For political reasons, if nothing else, it is essential to get a further resolution. If the United Nations is now prepared to forget about the serious consequences it threatened last November, and Resolution 1441 remains uncomplied with, then we can forget about the United Nations as the principal forum for enforcing world peace and security. It is goodbye United Nations, hello League of Nations again.

If the United Nations shows itself as an organisation that does not give a toss whether its resolutions are complied with then one of two things will happen. Either the United States will ignore the United Nations and continue to do so and unilateralism will be the order of the day or the United States will withdraw from the world in so far as it can and a new isolationism will be the order of the day. Neither possibility can be welcome to anybody who has a genuine belief in world peace, stability and security.

I hope the enforcement of Resolution 1441 will not lead to war. I ask people on all sides of this debate to accept my sincerity on that. I realise the consequences of war. War risks destabilisation of the Middle East. It risks increasing support for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Not least, it will result in the death of countless Iraqi civilians. I am not qualified to say how many Iraqi civilians will die in the event of war but even one is more than enough. It is within the power of Saddam Hussein to do what has to be done to bring an end to the sanctions which have caused the suffering so eloquently referred to by Deputy M. Higgins and to avert the threat of war. Deputy Higgins should remember that if we continue to rely indefinitely on inspectors the sanctions he is so worried about will have to remain in place.

Even at this eleventh hour, the Government is of the view that if Saddam Hussein convinces the inspectors, whose objectivity and honesty we do not doubt, that he has genuinely begun the process of disarmament we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that war does not result in the Middle East.

Mr. Gilmore:

I wish to share my time with Deputies Howlin and Connolly.

Like the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, I want to see the United Nations being able to enforce its resolutions. I do not want to see it being undermined. One way the United Nations can be undermined is when individual states, or groups of individual states, decide they will prosecute a war anyway and effectively blackmail it into supporting that position.

On the occasion of this debate we are called to reflect the wishes of the people we represent, many of whom sit in front of their television screens watching in horror at the prospect of war in Iraq. The people I represent, and I share their view, regard Saddam Hussein as a brutal dictator and his regime as a brutal dictatorship. It was that in the 1970s when it was killing off its own internal opposition and people in the west stood by and watched that happen. It was a dictatorship in the 1980s when it was being armed by the very people who are now so keen to prosecute a war against it and it remains a dictatorship now. Iraq may indeed have weapons of mass destruction but I would rather see that adjudicated by Hans Blix and the inspectors reporting to the United Nations than see it unilaterally adjudicated on by those who have already committed themselves to a course of war.

What we in the House must do tonight is to send out a strong message that we want war in Iraq averted. Prosecuting a war in Iraq will result in the death, destruction and injury of civilians who have already suffered considerably as a result of the sanctions already imposed. It will also unleash the possibility of retaliatory action, either direct retaliatory action, including against those who may be perceived as having assisted in the war effort against Iraq, which is where we come in, or retaliatory action in the longer term in the form of continued terrorism.

A war against Iraq is likely to spawn the kind of anger and motivation which could see another generation of terrorism being unleashed against cities in the United States, the European Union or elsewhere. We have enough experience of the beast of terrorism on this island to know that repressive activity continues and prolongs the terrorist response. Our responsibility is to send the message through our Government that we do not want a war in Iraq. It is regrettable that this message is not being articulated by our Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is more effectively articulated by the Belgian Foreign Minister who said this week in regard to the war and Washington's policy towards Iraq:

They did not succeed in catching Bin Laden and now they have to find an enemy they can beat. I think it has to do with power, probably, also very likely, with oil, and the humiliation they suffered.

That is the kind of response that I believe Irish people want to hear from our Government and not the go by the wall response we have been getting from the Taoiseach in Portugal, or on the use of Shannon for the refuelling of aeroplanes or in the form of the interpreting of the United States position that Deputy O'Dea, in particular, seems to have made a speciality. Irish people want to see our Government taking a strong moral position which is opposed to war and which articulates that internationally and in the United Nations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It has been agreed that Deputy Howlin will share time with Deputy Connolly.

Mr. Howlin:

This is an important debate and I am sorry we do not have more time for it. It is rare enough that we have foreign policy debates in the Dáil. That is an indication of the culture of this House, which lacks an interNationalist dimension. We seldom formulate a view of Ireland in the world and although we pay much lip service to our role in the United Nations and elsewhere, we seldom debate matters of international importance with strength and conviction.

I am not a pacifist; I believe there are occasions on which war can be justified. I supported the interventions in Kosovo, which were of a humanitarian nature and were required to save lives. There can be a moral justification on humanitarian grounds for war in certain circumstances. As Deputy Michael D. Higgins so eloquently described in his contribution, we set up an imperfect United Nations structure after decades of dreadful war in the last century with the objective of having an alternative to war as a first resort. It is true that the UN has been cynically abused by many, with power plays and bullying of small countries, but it is still the only world moral authority to protect human rights and to set legal norms and international standards of acceptable behaviour.

Where does Ireland stand now in relation to averting the catastrophe of war in Iraq? Are we acting in a positive way to facilitate alternatives to war? What has the Government done? What has the Minister for Foreign Affairs done in the past number of hours since the announcement of the Franco-German initiative? Where stands the Minister in regard to this? I agree wholeheartedly with much that was said by Deputy John Bruton in regard to the alternatives that must be explored now because of the certainty of the catastrophes that will flow from war.

The Irish people are asking a simple question. Why the rush to war? Why is the United States setting the pace and demanding the support of its friends. Their friendship is being judged on their absolute willingness to accept the complete diktat of the Unites States on this matter. If it is not accepted then the friendship is severed. Why is Iraq to be attacked this month when it is verifiably weaker than at any time since 1991? Why, when it is clearly weaker and poses less of a threat than at any time in recent years, must the international community rush to war in the next weeks when we know with absolute certainty that there will be awful consequences that are largely unquantifiable?

The conflict has the potential to become a war with the Islamic world. It will certainly give rise to significant recruitment for international terrorism. The greatest cheerleader for a war in Iraq must be Osama bin Laden who sees the potential for a shift in the opinion of the Islamic world to his perverted view of world affairs. The Middle East will be put into turmoil. Worst of all is the catastrophe that will befall the 26 million people in Iraq, particularly the 13 million children for whom Deputy Michael D. Higgins so eloquently pleaded the case.

As I said, I am a believer in the use of force to protect human rights. Ireland and its Minister must act in accordance with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people who desire to avert war and to be the guardians of international law. We must not be shrinking violets in this regard if we are to uphold the position that was rightly advocated around the world in canvassing a seat on the UN Security Council of being honest brokers and in nobody's pocket.

Mr. Connolly:

The Gulf War of 1991 ended in stalemate between Iraq and the international coalition led by the US and the first President Bush. The Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, was driven out of Kuwait, which he had invaded six months previously, and the peace agreement required Iraq to destroy its chemical and biological weapons. Teams of UN inspectors regularly searched the country to ensure this, and a strict embargo kept Iraq from selling oil or buying weapons. US and UK aircraft prevented Iraqi aircraft from flying in northern and southern parts of Iraq.

Iraq is one of the world's biggest oil producers. The Saudi tycoons made billions of dollars a year while Iraq's oil was blocked and President Bush made his millions as an oil magnate. The politics of the region are the politics of oil; billions are there to be made and lost by winners or losers. The US and the British wished the embargo to continue while the Russians and French, who wished to profit from buying and selling oil, wanted it lifted. In the late 1990s the international front against Iraq crumbled; each country in the coalition adopted positions to gain the greatest oil profits. Iraq and the US constantly claimed the other was lying, with Iraq periodically blocking inspection teams from certain sites, declaring them to be fake excuses to continue sanctions. The US periodically threatened to restart the war if teams were not allowed widespread access, declaring some weapons were still hidden in the country.

Despite the best efforts of Bush and his advisers to link Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, using fear of Bin Laden to restart a Gulf war, absolutely no connection was established between Iraq and September 11. However, Bush is planning a war, regardless. The build up of troops is creating a virtual inevitability of war but he is failing to convince the world, notably the NATO alliance, that it is necessary. Germany and France, together with Russia and China, have put forward a plan for Iraq to be policed by UN troops, and that additional arms inspectors should be deployed with broadened roles and a sufficiently extended timescale. That plan should be given a chance, and every avenue possible should be explored to avert war.

Saddam Hussein is not the only world leader with weapons of mass destruction. Many countries have even more including the US, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, the Ukraine, South Africa, India and Pakistan, and most notably, Israel, which has a small arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of reaching Iraq. However, neither the US nor the UN ever proposed bombing Israel or these other countries – which points to the existence of double standards. By attacking Iraq, and presenting Osama Bin Laden and aI-Qaeda with the ideal pretext to presume the right to retaliate on a spectacular scale – one can think of multiple world targets fitting into this category – Bush and the US are legitimising all the multifarious fundamentalist terror groups to gain further footholds and wreak havoc on vulnerable targets around the world.

Two bloody wars have failed to oust Saddam and have merely strengthened his hold on power, and it is doubtful if another military conflict would create real peace. The Clinton Administration announced in 1999 that UN inspection teams had destroyed many times more chemical and biological weapons than the 1991 Gulf War. Any new war will not even target weapons stockpiles which are impossible to locate. US air strikes would most likely target facilities already under UN inspection, and bombing would most likely destroy UN monitoring equipment.

Iraq's army is a shambles. It is a shadow of the army that invaded Kuwait in 1990 and is so weak it does not pose a threat to neighbouring countries. War will not reduce Saddam's weapons stockpiles and will probably not drive him from power. War will enrich a few people. Stockholders of military equipment manufacturers and Arab sheiks will gain the longer Iraq's oil is barred. War will cause Iraqi civilians to suffer while Saddam hides in his bunker.

Since 1991, as a result of the US-led economic sanctions against Iraq, 1.5 million Iraqi citizens, including 600,000 Iraqi children have died from lack of food. The military directors of the United States need a new evil empire to justify its existence and test its newest toys. The United States Government was elected by a minority of the electorate but resembles an aristocracy and is run by and for the elite few, a ghoulish cast of war mongers and assorted bloodhounds who are in charge of foreign policy. In Ireland our main difference with the US is with its foreign policy. Let us have none of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

There can now be up to 30 minutes for questions. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

In his speech the Minister quoted Kofi Annan as saying in relation to resolution 1441, "If Iraq fails to make use of this last chance and continues its defiance, the Council will have to make another grim choice". Does the Minister accept that resolution 1441 does not give permission to the United States or any other country to take action with multilateral support? The Minister also mentioned that the resolution did not, however, provide automatic authorisation for military action, rather did it deliberately place the threat of serious consequences in the context of the circumstances surrounding the reconvening of the council. He said:

At the same time it did not specify that a further resolution was required to authorise the use of force. This would simply not have been acceptable to either Britain or America, given their veto powers. It was simply 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.

Does the Minister support that view? Would the Minister support a statement by the EU Heads of Government or Heads of State warning Iraq of the consequences of non-compliance with resolution 1441?

What is the Minister's view of the Franco-German proposal for an increase in the number of inspectors and their support by military forces and overflights? How would the Government intend to implement a no-overflight policy in the event of the United States taking military action against Iraq in the absence of a fresh UN resolution? What plans are in place to ensure the safety of Irish citizens in the Middle East in the event of a conflict in that region?

Mr. Cowen:

On a number of occasions I stated the Government's policy regarding that matter and it is clear. The resolution does not provide for automatic military action. It refers to the report of the inspectors having to be referred to the Security Council for consideration. Apart from the legal argument about whether there are mandates for military action in the event of non-compliance in respect of this or previous resolutions, the Government is clearly of the view that there is a political requirement, in the interest of maintaining the unique legitimacy of the Security Council, that a second resolution should be passed in those circumstances. I cannot make it any more clear than that. That is the situation.

Regarding what Kofi Annan had to say, I obviously quoted him in support of my argument and I agree with his statements. I stated clearly in my speech that the position set out by Kofi Annan is entirely consistent with the position taken by the Government from the outset of the current stand-off. That is our position.

Deputy Mitchell asked me what the situation would be in the event of military action taking place. In the event of us getting to that point, with or without UN sanction, there would be a debate in the House on that matter. At the moment statements are being enunciated by Members of this House for the purpose of devising a strategy which avoids that situation. When we get to that stage we can have a discussion on the position based on the facts as they exist at that stage. What we are dealing with here is how do we get to a point where war is averted. None of us wants to see a war. The problem is that people have different views on how we might avert war. My role as Minister for Foreign Affairs and representative of the Government is to uphold the policy of recognising the primacy of the United Nations.

The United Nations has set out the position. We do not have to go back before resolution 1441. We are having enough debate in relation to the resolution as it stands. The UN Security Council, which under international law is the body to establish what is a threat to international peace and security and how it might be averted, has set out in resolution 1441 how it unanimously came to the view as to what should be done.

Regarding the rush to war, we must bear in mind that we are talking in the context of a 12 year problem. Resolution 687, which was drawn up as a result of the ceasefires set out clear obligations on Iraq to comply with the terms of that ceasefire. For a series of reasons, about which people can argue, Iraq has not complied. Political and diplomatic efforts have been made and economic sanctions have been applied. People can criticise how the 661 committee organised those and what interpretation it took, and successive Irish Governments had a particular view on all that. However, the present position is that resolution 1441 was a culmination of a 12 year process whereby the Security Council eventually decided that despite the fact that material breaches existed it was prepared to give a final opportunity to the Iraqi regime to resolve this matter in a way in which the enforcement provisions of the United Nations charter would not come into play.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins ascribes the greater responsibility regarding the present situation to the international community rather than to the Iraqi regime. I am sure he sincerely holds that view, but I disagree. The primary responsibility for the resolution of this problem lies in the hands of those against whom the resolution is directed. They have an opportunity to resolve this point. People say they are sorry to hear this being stated by me ad nauseam but it is the point of departure from which we must embark on a journey of discussion if we are to maintain the international order. The international order under the Security Council states that Iraq must comply, but it has not complied. We are using the inspectors as a means of reporting back to the Security Council whether the co-operation which has been lacking so far can now be forthcoming. The Security Council has indicated clearly and unanimously that in the event of continued non-compliance, based on previous experience, serious consequences will follow.

There is no question of the Government not having a position. I defy anyone to suggest that the broad position I have articulated has in any way deviated from the position of the UN Secretary General in relation to this matter since resolution 1441 was adopted or that anything I have said is inconsistent with supporting his position. It must be acknowledged we are in a difficult and dangerous situation. Of course there is concern about the consequences and what might happen. I have articulated and recognised this concern. We recognise also that we operate from the principle that collective security arrangements, the international legal order, requires this regime to comply. It is not a question of having had a rush to blood to get them to do it now on the basis of threat of war, it is as a result of 12 years of every effort known to us, short of military action, to get them to comply. It has brought terrible consequences for an innocent Iraqi population. That is true. We did everything we could in our own way during our time in the Security Council and we would claim some credit for Resolution 1409, which changed to some extent how the previous sanctions regime operated.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

Will the Minister address the other questions?

Mr. Cowen:

Those are the questions the Deputy asked.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

I asked about the Franco-German—

Mr. Cowen:

This is a proposal we must study and we have to ensure we know exactly what is being suggested. Hans Blix has made the point that it is not more inspectors he needs. He just wants to see a commitment to co-operate sufficiently to deal with the situation. On the question of UN soldiers going in there, that requires the consent of the Iraqi regime, quite apart from whether it will garner sufficient support in the Security Council as a viable way forward. When there was a suggestion of some military people going with the inspectors – when Resolution 1441 was being discussed and before it was finally adopted – there were countries in the Security Council who opposed it, including some who come up with that proposal now. I will be in Berlin this week and will discuss the matter with Joschka Fischer and I will then be in a better position to report to the House precisely what they have in mind.

Mr. M. Higgins:

I presume that statement means the Minister has not been in touch with his counterparts in France and Germany; does he anticipate speaking to them at the weekend?

Mr. Cowen:

I was in preparation for this debate during the course of this afternoon. There was a Government meeting this morning.

Mr. M. Higgins:

Will the Minister indicate what view he indicated to his German and French counterparts? I propose to ask a list of short questions because we have a limited amount of time.

Mr. Cowen:

I have not been in touch with them; I was in preparation for this debate. When I have proposals—

Mr. M. Higgins:

I understand what the Minister has said. After the passing of Resolution 1441, three permanent members of the Security Council, China, France and Russia, stated that their interpretation was that the resolution did not automatically allow force. In the course of his two speeches at the end of last year and this year, the Minister has referred to the divided opinion that led to Resolution 1441, two countries which would not accept that they would lose any automatic rights to take military action, namely, Britain and the United States. What is the Minister's opinion? Does he believe that Resolution 678 has built into it a concept of automaticity? I wish to ask another question because it arises from the comments of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea. Does the Minister share with him the view that pre-emption is consistent with an interpretation of the UN Charter? Does the Minister believe in the concept of a pre-emptive strike outside of the UN Charter and that it can be squared with international law?

I asked what consideration had been given to it but the Minister referred to it briefly only in his speech. What I cannot get an accurate answer on is whether the Minister has been concerned about the application of the Geneva Convention, the fourth protocol in relation to the protection of civilians and children. In relation to other matters, compliance with our own laws, uniformed presence, the carriage of weapons, the overflying and so on, a matter that has not been addressed is the Ottawa Convention. The statutory instrument that implemented the Ottawa Convention in Ireland in 1996 accepted the principle that unlike all the others, no Government or Minister would give permission for the production, sale, distribution or the carriage of landmines. Is the Minister in a position to say if his vigilance so far can guarantee us that the principles of the statutory instrument of 1996, which implemented the Ottawa Convention of 1993, have been fully complied with in relation to the present threatened situation in Iraq? Has he had discussions with any of the international or voluntary agencies in regard to a humanitarian aid pact?

Mr. Cowen:

I will deal with the questions as best I can. On the question of pre-emptive strikes, the use of military force is illegal unless it is used in self defence as recognised under article 51 of the charter or if it is sanctioned by the Security Council.

Mr. M. Higgins:

That is not the question.

Mr. Cowen:

I will answer the question. I have said the difficulty is that there are two countries, the UK and the US, which argue they already have a Security Council mandate to take such action and that there is no agreement that this is the case. My personal view is that a second resolution is required.

Mr. Stagg:

Good.

Mr. Cowen:

That comes from the resolution itself. That is our understanding. We were there for Resolution 1441. I have said this already, it is not new.

Mr. Stagg:

I think the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has another view.

Mr. O'Dea:

No, I have not. That is my view and I stated it explicitly.

Mr. Cowen:

Let us not deal with it as if we were in a school yard, it is a serious situation. Let us have a discussion about it.

Mr. O'Dea:

The Deputy should not distort what I said.

Mr. M. Higgins:

It is not a principle of armament, it is a principle—

An Ceann Comhairle:

Allow the Minister to proceed without interruption, please.

Mr. Cowen:

We want to see the UN framework maintained. We want to see the Security Council making any decisions on any issue that goes beyond the consideration of the report by inspectors in Resolution 1441. That is our clear position and we have outlined it. We have made the point that others take a different legal interpretation and that they claim otherwise. We have set out our belief on the situation, even though that issue is contested by others.

In regard to the Geneva Convention, these are detailed questions to which I will give a considered written answer. My reaction to it is that one would expect in the event of a war, which we are trying to avert, that it would be conducted within the international parameters in which war takes places. From our point of view, our focus is on trying to bring about a situation where the international community can come together and put a position to the Iraqi regime which is clear, consistent and provides for them to show their good faith, if they have it, to deal with the situation comprehensively in a way which will allow the international community to put an end to this problem without war.

Mr. M. Higgins:

And the sanctions.

Mr. Cowen:

On the sanctions, we have worked during our time and with some moderate success, towards improving the sanctions regime. There still remains a common view – it is not the view simply of a veto on the US and the British – that the sanctions regime should remain in place until such time as there is compliance. That is a view that is still held within the Security Council. From our point of view, we are getting to the point where if Iraq complies all those issues are resolved. The question of sanctions automatically becomes resolved if they deal with the issues which have been long outstanding. The sanctions regime was brought forward by the Security Council as action short of military action to indicate its determination to deal with the fact that non-compliance was continuing in respect of Resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions. We do not hold a brief for every decision made by the 661 committee. We made our views known to them on many occasions in respect of narrow interpretations which were taking place regarding dual use. We put our position clearly and consistently and there was no difference between what we were doing and what our predecessors did regarding that matter. All of that can be said clearly.

As regards the question on the Ottawa Convention, I will have to come back to the Deputy on that. I did not anticipate that detailed question on landmines but I will check it out.

Mr. M. Higgins:

Has an aeroplane ever been inspected for landmines?

Mr. Cowen:

The carriage of landmines has never been notified to us and if it were to be, we would refuse that request.

Mr. M. Higgins:

That is not the requirement.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Sorry, Deputy Higgins, in fairness to other Deputies, I ask you to allow the Minister to conclude.

Mr. M. Higgins:

When the Minister signed the convention, he gave away the right to give permission. That is the distinctive feature—

Mr. Cowen:

I will come back to the Deputy on that matter. He has the advantage on me in that regard.

Mr. Sargent:

I am trying to tease out who is telling the truth. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, stated that the US is in a state of war with Iraq. The military sorties and the bombing of radar stations, which have been witnessed by UNICEF and are reportedly causing civilian casualties, are illegal in UNICEF's view. Does the Minister concur with that view? Is the use of Shannon Airport, therefore, illegal under Irish law because we are participating, co-operating and complicit in those illegal actions? Will the Minister respond to that question because it is one which will be tested in court and the Government's view should be clear?

Mr. Cowen:

In relation to the no-fly zones, no clear legal position has been adopted by everybody. That is one of the problems of law being an inexact science – international law is an inexact science. The Deputy has a different view to me in relation to Shannon Airport. We had a debate on it last week and there is no point in me going over it again. We are not participating in a war by providing these facilities. We can provide empirical evidence, supported by the UN Secretary General and others, confirming that this military build up has provided the necessary pressure – referred to by Dr. Blix regarding his ability to get into and to look at these inspections, quite apart from testing the co-operation or otherwise of the Iraqi regime. The Deputy has a different view on that and there is no point in us going over it.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

Do I understand the Minister correctly that without a further UN resolution, the Government will not support a US-British act of aggression against the people of Iraq? Do I further understand that, in those circumstances, he will deny the belligerents access to and use of the facilities at Shannon Airport in terms of all flight stopovers servicing and expanding their armed endeavour in the Gulf region or anywhere else? Will the Minister be specific and clear on that point?

It is imperative that we know where the Minister and the Government stand. Will he spell out in simple and clear terms that without a further UN resolution, he will make it patently clear that the Government's position is one which will not offer support to a US-British act of aggression against Iraq and that he will withdraw use of Shannon Airport for all servicing of the belligerents' efforts to service or expand their efforts in the Gulf region?

Mr. Cowen:

I set out clearly in the previous answer our interpretation of the position regarding Resolution 1441. In the event of any action taking place with or without a UN mandate, this House will debate it at that time based on the facts then pertinent.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

What is the Government's position?

Mr. Cowen:

I am not in a position to anticipate the Government's view on that matter until such time as it happens, if it happens. In the meantime, I have set out clearly the purpose of Government activity thus far, which is to find a peaceful solution to this problem and to avert war.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

How late will the Minister leave—

Mr. G. Mitchell:

The Minister did not address two of the questions I asked. I asked him about Irish citizens in the region and about the European Council meeting next Monday. Will the Council of Ministers meeting next Monday address the humanitarian situation in Iraq as it stands and as it might stand in the event of an attack on or the bombing of Iraq?

The Minister mentioned discussions with Richard Haass last week when there was an exchange on the situation in Iraq. Did Mr. Haass bring to the Government or to the Minister a message from the US Administration and, if so, what was that message?

Mr. M. Higgins:

Will the Minister be open to other suggestions at the European Council meeting next Monday or does he propose to take an initiative himself? If one wants to break the logjam and to establish a non-military option, one needs to revive the prospect of the sanctions being ended. One side in the argument, Britain and the United States, have more or less said that sanctions will end when there is a regime change. That is not the Minister's position, or so he tells us. Therefore, what options will the Minister bring to the Council meeting? Is he open to the options of others? Can we take it that between now and Monday, the Minister will seek to identify non-military options?

Mr. Gormley:

Why did the Minister inform this House on 13 November 2002 that American aeroplanes landing in Shannon Airport were in full compliance with orders when those orders were not signed until January?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

Will the Minister attend the anti-war rally in Dublin on Saturday and will he instruct his colleagues to do so?

Mr. Cowen:

Good try.

I hope I can recall all the questions but I ask Members to forgive me if I do not. In relation to our citizens in that general area, obviously we are working with our ambassadors and embassies, bringing to their attention the dangers and difficulties, which they would know as citizens themselves, and instructing them to make arrangements if they believe they are necessary. We are not at the stage where we are telling people to evacuate or otherwise.

In relation to my discussions with Ambassador Haass, which covered not only Iraq but Northern Ireland, he made himself available to the press and made clear the views of the US Administration. Those views were similarly expressed to me in the bilateral discussions we had and, as I said in my speech, I outlined our position.

In relation to Deputy Higgins's question, I have made the point that we have the Security Council resolution and the inspectors who are the interlocutors with the regime and who have been authorised by the Security Council, the sole body to deal with this issue, to bring forward a report which we all hope will meet with the requirements of the situation. In the event that it does not, then the Security Council will have to consider that, make an assessment and come to political judgments. Serious decisions will have to be taken.

As regards what I will be doing in the interim and at the European Union, I do not believe it is in the interests of the international community to deepen divisions in relation to this matter. As someone put it to me quite well over the weekend, one gets the impression whether people mean it – I am sure they do not – that there are some on one side of this argument who will not take "Yes" for an answer and some on the other side of the argument who will not take "No" for an answer. In other words, it appears there are some who believe that no matter what is achieved with the Iraqi regime, it will not be sufficient.

Those on the other side of the argument might well be of the view that there are no circumstances in which they will ever be satisfied with the level of co-operation with the Iraqi regime, such as bringing about an enforcement mechanism. I believe that the majority of Europeans are between these two positions. We must ask our European partners on the Security Council, who have a responsibility at this time, to remain within the Security Council framework. They must involve themselves in a dialogue which will find the areas of agreement necessary to ensure the resolution is implemented, uphold the credibility of the United Nations and, as outlined in my speech, get the specifics at this stage so that we can maintain international support and solidarity and the unique legitimacy of the multilateral system through the Security Council.

In the aftermath of the Blix and El Baradei report on Friday, what precisely will we be asking the Iraqi regime to do, because it is very likely it will not be able to confirm sufficient co-operation so that the dossier can be closed? The responsibility is not for people to search for another way forward, but to stick to what has been agreed, provide confirmation as to what precisely must be done, within what timeframe and find common agreement on what will be the serious consequences if the demands are not met within that timeframe.

It behoves everyone on the Security Council to work towards a consensus, which will have two benefits. It will provide a clear way forward and a clear and common understanding by the international community as to what is required of the Iraqi regime, having enunciated the principles set out in Resolution 1441 and having tried unsuccessfully up to now to adequately deal with the situation to everyone's satisfaction. It must provide clarity and direction so that the problem can be solved multilaterally. Those who oppose unilateralism must ensure that the multilateral approach is seen to be effective and coherent and has the collective political will to do the job effectively so that the Iraqi regime will not continue to miscalculate and prolong the problem on the basis that the international community will not do what it has promised. I hope we can avoid conflict but there should not be misunderstanding about our resolve to face that prospect and make that grim choice, as the Secretary General said. We must do everything in the meantime to avoid this situation, but the Iraqi regime should not miscalculate our resolve to take action.

Mr. Gormley:

I asked a specific question.

Mr. Cowen:

Military aircraft.