Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Mar 2003

Vol. 563 No. 3

Foreign Conflicts: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, noting the imminence of military action by a United States led coalition against Iraq:

– reaffirms Ireland's commitment to the United Nations as the guarantor of collective global security and as the appropriate forum for the resolution of disputes threatening international peace and security;

– condemns the continued refusal of the Government of Iraq over a period of 12 years to comply with its obligation to disarm as imposed by numerous resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, most recently in Resolution 1441;

– recalls that Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with these obligations and recalled the Security Council's repeated warnings that Iraq would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

– expresses its deep regret that efforts within the Security Council to reach agreement on how to address the question of Iraqi non-compliance have failed;

– recalls Ireland's statement as a member of the Security Council on the adoption of Resolution 1441 that it would be for the Security Council to decide on any ensuing action in the event of further Iraqi non-compliance;

– regrets that the coalition finds it necessary to launch the campaign in the absence of agreement on a further resolution, notwithstanding the claims of the coalition to be acting on the basis of an existing Security Council mandate;

– endorses the decision of the Government that Ireland will not participate in the coalition's proposed military action against Iraq;

– expresses its earnest hope that military action, should it occur, will be of short duration and that loss of life and destruction will be kept to a minimum;

– declares its commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Iraq;

– calls on all parties to any conflict to respect the provisions of international humanitarian law, in particular, the Geneva Conventions;

– welcomes the stated intention of the coalition to act swiftly to address the food and humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people;

– welcomes the arrangements put in place by the Government to ensure that Ireland will be able to contribute rapidly to the humanitarian effort in Iraq;

– calls on the United Nations to assume a central role in securing the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and the reconstruction of Iraq in which Ireland will play its full part;

– recalls the long-standing arrangements for the overflight and landing in Ireland of US military and civilian aircraft; and

– supports the decision of the Government to maintain those arrangements.

I requested you, a Cheann Comhairle, to recall the Dáil so the House can consider the serious deterioration in the international situation regarding Iraq. Since my request was made, war has commenced and I can only hope and pray, as do all Deputies, that the war will be concluded quickly and that the Iraqi people will be liberated from their present circumstances. They must be allowed to rebuild their country and determine their future as a sovereign people. Hopefully, this war will not last long and they will be able to do that.

The Government, like the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland and around the world, had hoped that we would never reach this point. We are dismayed that efforts to secure Iraq's disarmament by peaceful means have failed. People are asking how we have arrived at this situation. Why did diplomacy fail? Why was it necessary to resort to military force? Why could the Security Council not agree? Why was the European Union so deeply divided? The answers are far from simple and I will not be able to deal with all of them today.

One thing, however, is clear. Conflict could have been avoided if Saddam Hussein had complied with the long-standing demands of the UN Security Council that Iraq surrender its weapons of mass destruction. The simple fact is that he refused to do so.

No credible commentator would dispute the fact that Iraq is ruled by an evil and cruel military dictatorship. It is a regime which tolerates no dissent and no protest. It has engaged in territorial aggression and genocide against its own people. I will not list all the wrongdoings of this regime but will limit myself to its defiance of the United Nations.

Saddam Hussein refused to comply with 17 Security Council resolutions over 12 years. He forced his people to suffer the effects of economic sanctions rather than meet his obligations under the UN Charter. While the members of the council, including Ireland, worked to ameliorate the effects of the sanctions, Saddam sought to obstruct the oil for food programme and used the suffering of Iraqi children as a propaganda tool against sanctions. He defied every effort to disarm him peacefully. In 1998, he broke his agreement with Kofi Annan to meet his disarmament obligations and threw out the weapons inspectors.

He allowed them to return last year, following the adoption of Resolution 1441, only in the face of a credible threat of military force. However, despite the clear indication by the Security Council that he was being given a final opportunity to disarm, he continued with his old ways. Since then he has played a skilful game of cat and mouse. He has done just enough to encourage those who wanted to believe that he might comply peacefully but never enough to demonstrate a clear and unambiguous commitment to disarmament, as the United Nations repeatedly demanded. He has miscalculated, and not for the first time. Tragically, the long-suffering Iraqi people will once again be obliged to pay the price for his lack of judgment. Let us hope that this will be the last time they have to do so. He has not only caused suffering to his own people, he has also, by his ongoing defiance, served to undermine the authority of the UN Security Council.

Like the overwhelming majority of countries in the United Nations, Ireland has no mighty armed forces to protect its interests. We are not a member of a military alliance. We look to the United Nations as the guarantor of our collective peace and security. Ireland wants to see a strong and effective United Nations. We want a United Nations which is united in purpose as well as in name. We want a United Nations that is respected. We need a Security Council which is capable and willing to ensure that its resolutions are fully implemented.

On New Year's Eve last, Ireland completed its two-year term on the Security Council. We did our utmost to ensure that the Security Council discharged its mandate to maintain international peace and security. The attacks of 11 September 2001 demonstrated that the world had entered into a new and dangerous era. The optimistic suggestion put forward in the aftermath of the Cold War, that we had reached the end of history, proved to be seriously premature. Instead, we realised that deep and mutating hatreds had travelled with us into the 21st century.

Two particular threats have emerged. The first is from ruthless and determined terrorists, who represent no state and who operate from bases in unstable countries. Ireland used its position on the Security Council to urge a multi-dimensional response to this phenomenon. We supported the immediate need for a strong security approach: fighting the terrorists directly through military and police action, breaking up the terrorists logistical support channels, and cutting off their finance. We also urged that action be taken to tackle the root causes of conflict: intolerance, poverty, and the denial of rights and freedoms.

The second emerging threat to international peace and security is from the spread of weapons of mass destruction. What is particularly alarming about these new threats to international peace and security is the possibility that they will intersect. Terrorists might acquire from weak and unstable regimes their own weapons of mass destruction. This would enable them to inflict untold death and injury on those who find themselves the focus of their hatred.

The Iraqi regime has a proven record of seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It has shown a willingness to use such weapons against its enemies and even against its own people. It has defeated all efforts to make sure that it surrenders these weapons. It has shown a willingness, given the opportunity, to strike directly against US targets.

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council, of which Ireland was a member, agreed unanimously to adopt Resolution 1441. This resolution found Iraq in material breach of successive UN resolutions and gave its regime a final opportunity to meet its disarmament obligations.

During the period leading up to the adoption of Resolution 1441, Ireland worked discreetly but effectively to encourage consensus in the Council. We encouraged members to work from a single text and to refuse support for any course of action which looked likely to cause division in the Council. The outcome was a vindication of our constructive approach.

As Head of Government of one of the members of the Security Council which worked for many weeks to achieve the adoption of Resolution 1441, I say quite emphatically that Resolution 1441 was clearly intended as a final chance resolution. Serious consequences were threatened in the event of continued non-compliance. The point at issue, at the time, was whether the decision to resort to force was to be taken by the Council or whether it was open to member states to act on the basis of existing resolutions. The Council reached a compromise whereby it decided to convene immediately upon a report of Iraqi obstruction and non-compliance "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Ireland made its position clear in the Security Council, immediately after the vote. We said it was for the UN Security Council to determine what action should be taken in the event of continued Iraqi non-compliance. Other members of the Council, including most notably the United States, stated their view that a second resolution was not a precondition for military action. They pointed to their strong conviction that there was an outstanding mandate for the use of force based on previous resolutions. They were not willing to bind themselves to the obligation of waiting for a future resolution which, in their view, might unreasonably be denied.

There is no clear legal consensus on whether such a mandate exists. The arguments advanced by the coalition are supported by a number of countries which are not participating in military action. Ireland, however, cannot participate in a military campaign without an explicit, further UN mandate.

I regret that Ireland's term on the Security Council concluded at the end of last year and that we were consequently unable to assist in the efforts to implement Resolution 1441. I do not know whether we could have helped resolve the divisions which emerged—

Mr. Gormley

No.

The Taoiseach

—but it has been frustrating to watch the unanimity which prevailed on the adoption of Resolution 1441 give way to division and recrimination. It was clear for some time that the only prospect of persuading Saddam to disarm lay in convincing him that a united international community was prepared to resort to force to disarm him.

The build up of US and British forces in the Gulf is widely recognised, including by Kofi Annan and Hans Blix, as the only reason Saddam Hussein undertook even limited co-operation with the inspectors. Unfortunately, the divisions on the Council led Saddam to believe he could continue to evade compliance and get away with it.

Ireland deeply regrets the loss of cohesion on the Council. We avoided taking sides and repeatedly urged all members of the Council to work together to achieve consensus. In an effort to overcome the emerging differences, Government representatives, on several occasions in recent weeks, urged members of the Council to address three questions. What precisely does Saddam have to do? How long does he have to do it? What will be the consequences if he does not do it? Had these questions been addressed in good time, we might not have ended up where we are today.

Ireland hopes the military action can be concluded as soon as possible with the least possible loss of life. We call on Saddam Hussein to put the people of Iraq first, to vacate the scene and allow this situation to reach a peaceful conclusion. There can only be one outcome to this conflict. Saddam will lose but he can still spare his people further suffering.

We made it clear on the adoption of Resolution 1441 that we expected any decision to sanction the use of force to be taken by the Security Council itself in a further resolution. The Government cannot, therefore, participate in the military action under way.

We recognise that those states carrying out the current military action claim they are doing so under the existing mandate arising from previous UN resolutions. The legal arguments in favour of this position have been set out by the British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, and have been widely reported in the Irish media.

Today the world looks on in deep concern. Lives will be lost on both sides. The Iraqi people will almost certainly suffer hunger and death. Iraq and the wider Middle East region could be destabilised. I call on all parties to this conflict to pay full respect to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their protocols and other relevant provisions of humanitarian law.

Our position on this conflict is clear. The Government regrets that the United States led coalition has found it necessary to launch the campaign in the absence of agreement on a further resolution. I said some weeks ago that a second resolution was a political imperative. In its absence we have to conduct ourselves in a manner which is in keeping with our Constitution and with our interests and we will do so.

On the separate question of whether Ireland should continue to facilitate the landing and overflight of aircraft belonging to states engaged in the present military action against Iraq, essentially, we are talking about US military aircraft and civilian aircraft carrying military personnel and equipment on behalf of the US Government.

The Government discussed the matter at length yesterday. We decided not to change our current policy on stop-overs or overflights.

Deputies

Shame.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

The Taoiseach

I assure the House and the people that the Government has carefully considered what is best for this country in a very difficult situation where no simple answers exist. We took a decision after long reflection. We took into account the present circumstances, the principles that underpin our foreign policy—

Mr. Gormley

Or lack of.

The Taoiseach

—our international relations and our broader national interests. The issues are not black and white. International relations involve difficult dilemmas. It is easy to address issues in absolute terms. The responsibility of Government does not always allow that luxury.

There are a number of important factors relevant to our decision. The first and crucial consideration is that the Government does not regard the provision of landing and overflight facilities to foreign aircraft as participating in a war.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

The Taoiseach

This has been the consistent position of successive Irish Governments and was our position in relation to the Gulf War. At that time the Government pointed out that whether any role adopted or action taken by the Government in relation to a Gulf War would constitute participation in that war is, in the last analysis, a question of substance and degree. The Government then and now maintains that merely to permit the use of a civilian airport in this manner is not of sufficient degree or substance to constitute participating in the war.

The provision of facilities does not make Ireland a member of a military coalition nor does anybody regard us as such. We remain militarily neutral. The decision we have taken on this issue is our own.

Ireland has made over-flight and landing facilities available to the United States for the past 50 years. This period covers many crises and military confrontation which involved the US taking military action without specific United Nations endorsement, Kosovo being the most recent example. We did not withdraw or suspend those facilities at any stage during that period and there is no reason to act differently towards the US now.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Government is feeding the forces on their way.

The Taoiseach

No other country is known to be contemplating the withdrawal of existing facilities from the United States. This includes Germany and France who have been the strongest opponents of US intentions on the Security Council. It also includes a number of Arab countries who have taken a strong position against war.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Taoiseach should make history and act.

The Taoiseach

These countries would not accept that by maintaining over-flight or landing facilities to the US, they are enforcing or participating in US military action. It would be extraordinary for Ireland to adopt the position of opposition in regard to the US that no other country, not even its strongest critics on the Security Council, is prepared to take.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Except Austria.

The Taoiseach

The United States and Great Britain are our partners in the Northern Ireland peace process, working with us to bring peace to our island. They are our biggest trading partners and the biggest foreign investors in the Irish economy. They are host to the biggest Irish communities overseas. They share many of our political and civic values and they are particularly worthy of our understanding where it is appropriate.

The Government is convinced that the withdrawal of such facilities at this time could not but be seen by any objective observer as a radical and far-reaching change in our foreign policy and in the long-standing national interpretation of what is and what is not participation in a war. Any such change at this time could only give succour to the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Boyle

Shame on the Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Boyle, please.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy wants it both ways.

The Taoiseach

Any such change would also be seen by the United States and its allies as the adoption of a hostile position in relation to their country and their interests. Above all, it would create a precedent which would run counter to our long-term national interests.

I recognise that the Government's position will not be welcomed by everybody in the country. I know that many people are deeply concerned about the potential loss of life in Iraq and want to signal their disassociation from that and from what they regard as an unjustified war. The Government recognises these concerns and the sincerity with which they are held. I have included in the text circulated to Deputies a summary of the advice given to the Government by the Attorney General on the issues which arise.

Mr. G. Mitchell

It is not here, Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

The international community must now turn its attention quickly to the new Iraq which we all want to see emerge from the current crisis. We must act together to preserve the territorial integrity of that country and we must ensure that the constituent peoples of Iraq can live in peace, freedom and equality. We must free the enormous resources of Iraq so that its people can live in the prosperity that is rightly theirs. It will not be easy but we cannot shrink from this challenge. The benefits of Iraq's oil must be available to the Iraqi people. Iraq should thus have the ability to grow and prosper in a way which has not been possible over the past decade.

The Government has kept in close contact with the United Nations regarding the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, will address this issue in greater detail later in this debate. The United Nations will have an important role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. Ireland, with the other member states of the UN, should make sure this opportunity is fully taken up. I have written to the Secretary General and the current President of the Security Council to institute weekly humanitarian briefings on Iraq, as we did last autumn on the question of Afghanistan.

The international community must recommit itself to achieving peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. There is a severe risk that the current crisis will distract the world community from dealing constructively and effectively with this source of instability, both in the region and the world. In particular, the world community must build on the road map for peace in the Middle East, which is being drawn up by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia.

The world now faces a dark and dangerous moment. The international community is divided. We must reunite and work together and we must help build and stability in the Middle East region and deal with the growing threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These are challenges the world cannot afford to ignore.

The motion my Government and I have placed before the House gives a clear description of, and cogent justification for, the Government's approach to this issue. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Gormley

A disgrace.

Mr. Kenny

I move amendment No. 8:

To delete all words after the fifth paragraph and substitute the following:

"– noting that UN Resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted, demonstrating that agreement can be achieved by the UN Security Council;

– noting that in welcoming Resolution 1441, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said on 8 November 2002 that the resolution provided for a clear sequential process whereby the inspectors would report back to the Security Council, which would assess compliance, make a decision on whether material breach had occurred and ‘what ensuing action is appropriate';

– noting the Government's stated objective of preserving the primacy and importance of the Security Council as stated in Dáil Éireann on numerous occasions;

– noting that the Taoiseach told the Dáil on 13 November 2002 that Resolution 1441 was ‘not a mandate for military action';

– noting that securing a second UN resolution was described as a ‘political imperative' by the Taoiseach as late as 19 February 2003;

– noting the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Dáil Éireann on 11 February 2003 that ‘force should only be used as a last resort when every other possibility has been tried and failed';

– noting that Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector, has stated that a critical path to a solution to the situation could be found in a short time using Resolution 1284;

– noting that a second resolution was considered so important that it was pursued at the UN until Monday last when it was withdrawn;

– noting the protection which the UN Charter gives not only for collective security but for the existence of neutral countries under that security and that neutrality could not exist without respect for the UN Charter;

– noting that there is no immediate threat to the security of the region from Iraq unlike the Kuwait invasion which gave rise to the Gulf War;

– noting that the UN was established to prevent a repeat of the failure of collective security by the League of Nations and the subsequent death of 60 million people in the Second World War;

– expresses its earnest hope that military action, should it occur, will be of short duration and that loss of life and destruction will be kept to a minimum;

– declares its commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Iraq;

– calls on all parties to any conflict to respect the provisions of international humanitarian law, in particular, the Geneva Conventions;

– noting the close economic and personal ties between Ireland and the United States and the United Kingdom and the enormous contribution which both countries have made to international security;

– resolves, on the basis of the facts now known:

– that it opposes and cannot participate in, or support, in any manner, the war which has commenced;

– that Ireland should work actively to restore the authority of the UN;

– that Ireland explore the humanitarian steps it can take to relieve the suffering which will result from this war; and

– that the Taoiseach should raise at the European Council, the involvement of the EU and the UN in the provision of humanitarian relief and the reconstruction of Iraq following the war."

I begin with the words of the Taoiseach on 19 February 2003:

What is most important for the future for future generations, is that the authority and the primacy of the Security Council is maintained because what happens in the next crisis and the one after that? You have to have international order for dealing with crises.

This special session of the Dáil, taking place when war has already begun, is being held at a critical moment in the diplomatic history of this country. It is a moment that demands clarity, determination and courage and, above all, it demands conviction. It is a moment where Ireland must not just declare its hand before the world, but actually play it.

We must not take the easy option, the shrugging option that because the war has started, what we do does not matter. It does matter. It matters to our international credibility now and in the future. It matters to our self-respect as a nation. It matters to our respect for international law and the institutions set up to implement that law.

Today the issue is we either believe in the legitimacy and primacy of the United Nations, the international institution that has kept an often fragile peace in this volatile and shrinking world of ours, or we do not. We either agree to be bound by the carefully constructed processes and the decisions of that institution or we do not. We either consolidate our hard-won political position as a strong, neutral and non-aligned country or we join the supporting cast of the coalition of the willing. In short, we either use or lose our small but vital voice in international affairs, perhaps indefinitely.

This is a debate about a war of doubtful legitimacy, a war loathed by the vast majority of the people of this country, but let there be no doubt this is also a debate on the fate and the future of the United Nations and, therefore, the fate and the future of the world, of which Iraq is such a tortured part.

We may see this war on television from a safe distance but we must not allow distance to confuse us about the country being bombarded, Iraq, where almost 50% of the population is under 15 years, infant mortality is ten times that of the US, 70% of the population is dependent on the UN food for oil programme—

Mr. Roche

Why?

Mr. Kenny

—and hundreds of thousands have disappeared or been threatened, gassed, mutilated and murdered over the vile 24 year regime of the dictator, Saddam Hussein, a regime that is utterly detestable.

Mr. Roche

Why is the Deputy supporting him?

Mr. Kenny

Terrorism and dictatorship must be challenged and eliminated—

Mr. C. Lenihan

By closing Shannon?

Mr. Kenny

—but that elimination does not required that Ireland should act counter to our beliefs.

Mr. Roche

Kevin Myers was right.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Kenny, without interruption, please.

Mr. Kenny

I will deal with the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, outside. Ireland is neutral and non-aligned and has in the past demonstrated that this status can allow us to have considerable influence, as we should have had in relation to this issue.

As a small, defenceless country, Ireland has a better understanding than larger nations of the need to be a part of the world order of security. The UN has been the best example of that. Since pre-emptive action undermines the primacy and legitimacy of the UN, Ireland's self-interest is best expressed by refusal to involve itself through the use of Irish facilities in such a pre-emptive invasion.

A few short months ago, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, told the UN General Assembly that the UN was:

the centre of our system of collective responsibility. It is a mirror of our determination and our political will . . . this is the world body invested by the peoples of the world with unique legitimacy and unique authority.

Today that same UN stands emasculated by the military action of the US and Great Britain.

When Kofi Annan asserted: "states have clear responsibility to uphold international law and to maintain international order", the Minister went on the UN record to endorse him fully. He said:

States must honour their international obligations. The choice we face is stark. Either we stand by and strengthen the international system and the rule of law or we invite anarchy.

The UN, this mirror of our political will, is imperfect but, through its legitimacy and its universality, it has been undoubtedly the most skilful and most successful arbiter of international disputes for over half a century, a catalyst for action on global issues. The UN has proved to be the best mechanism available to mobilise and sustain international co-operation, not just in matters of conflict, but regarding human rights, the environment and drug trafficking. For over 50 years it has done its best, imperfect though it is, to protect the world's most vulnerable and therefore silent people – children, refugees, those displaced by war and famine, ethnic minorities, indigenous populations and those with disabilities. It has done its best and achieved much in a world of intensifying social, cultural and political complexity.

For all those years the UN has been the great hope of small countries, non-aligned countries and neutral states like ours. It is thanks to the UN that small neutral states like ours have had the opportunity to play key roles in the resolution of international conflicts and peace-keeping missions from the Congo to Cyprus, Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia. The UN now faces a future of uncertainty, where serious doubts are being cast over its primacy and legitimacy.

In November the Minister for Foreign Affairs said Resolution 1441 was about disarmament and not war. He said the Government believed the integrity of the UN Charter and the prerogatives of the Security Council were fully preserved in terms of the resolution which provided for a clear sequential process whereby inspectors would report back to the Council on Iraq's compliance with its obligations under the resolution. This would then be assessed by the Security Council itself, which would decide whether a material breach of Iraq's obligations had occurred and what ensuing action would be appropriate.

That was the basis on which the Irish representative on the Security Council supported Resolution 1441, a fact acknowledged by the Government motion. Last month the Taoiseach told RTE we wanted a further resolution – that whether legally one was needed or not, he believed it was a political imperative in the circumstances to have one and that was where we stood. That comment belies the Government decision to provide Irish facilities now. One cannot uphold the primacy and legitimacy of the UN and agree to provide facilities in a war that the UN has not mandated.

The Taoiseach's vague rationale that Shannon was used during the Vietnam War is without merit. Past practice does not justify present action, nor should we kid ourselves that continued use of Shannon for, as he puts it, peripheral activities is a continuum without consequence. It is a stand-alone decision with possibly dire consequences. One of those possible consequences is the possibility that Shannon and Ireland will become targets for terrorist counter-strikes.

Mr. O'Dea

Shame. Giving in to the terrorists.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Kenny, without interruption.

Mr. Kenny

To say Ireland would be the only country in the free world not to offer assistance is also wrong. Countries such as Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and Sweden are showing their opposition by denying use of their facilities. Countries such as Germany are aligned with NATO and we have no such alliance.

These are tough times for international diplomacy and a divided Europe is paying a heavy price for its failure to tackle security issues head-on. Last July I attended a meeting of the leaders of the European People's Party and I was appalled to find no mention of the Palestinian or Iraqi crises on the agenda for the subsequent Heads of Government meeting in Seville. I raised this point with the Taoiseach in the Dáil to no avail.

This kind of political vacuum must be addressed if Europe is to provide a strong and coherent voice in world affairs. As I speak, France is being pilloried and the European voice, far from being powerful, has been fatally incoherent. How have we arrived at a situation where, from last September, deep rifts have been allowed to open both in the Security Council and the EU? These divisions have occurred along deep historic fault lines as in the case of Britain and France and are of serious concern to the continued development of the European Union.

It should be noted that the US has used its veto 73 times in 58 years, mainly to block initiatives dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Robin Cook's recent observations regarding UN resolutions on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories now take on a deeper resonance. One must consider the implications of this war for developments in the wider Arab world also.

The Government motion fails to address the damage which has been done to the UN by the decision to go to war without a second resolution. Apart from an expression of regret, the Government offers no support to the UN. In contrast, the Fine Gael amendment sets out in clear terms the sequence of events which led to the current conflict and the need for Ireland to work to restore the authority of the UN and to encourage the provision of humanitarian relief. I urge the Taoiseach, on behalf of the Government, to make humanitarian assistance to Iraq a priority issue, to raise this at the Heads of Government meeting tomorrow so that Europe can at least have a co-ordinated position on this fundamental question. Any such humanitarian aid should be in addition to existing programmes and not be diverted from current assistance to Africa or other countries.

The Fine Gael amendment demonstrates that Resolution 1441 did not authorise war. We remind the Government that as decreed in the UN Charter, force should only be used as a last resort when every other possibility has been tried and failed. The facts are that every other possibility has not been tried and failed. The Fine Gael amendment highlights the objective of preserving the primacy and importance of the Security Council. If the Government was truly concerned about the impact of the UN in this war, if it truly believed that every other possibility has been tried and failed and if it wanted to take action which would show its support for the primacy of the UN, it would have made the difficult choice. Instead the Government motion merely expresses regret and then moves on. Business as usual.

The Fine Gael amendment offers Members of the House an opportunity to say they oppose the war, that Ireland will not participate in or support in any manner the war and it also allows for the continuation of humanitarian flights through Shannon Airport. This debate is wider than the issue of over-flight and landing facilities. It is about our attitude to military action which does not have the benefit of UN support. We undermine the UN at our peril. There is a grim historic precedent for such undermining called the League of Nations. Some 60 million people died as a result of its emasculation at the hands of nations which looked to immediate self-interest rather than international law.

Genuine concerns have been expressed in the recent past about the possible consequences of Shannon not being made available to US military aeroplanes during the period of the war in the absence of a UN mandate. Ireland has, of course, a special relationship with the US, one of emotion and politics, family and economics, history and hope. It is important at a time of often unjustified anti-Americanism to restate the strength of that relationship. It is equally important to register that it has never been a relationship based on economic subservience or international patronage.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kenny

At no time, up to and including the present day, has the US ever put Ireland under pressure to abandon our non-aligned status or our concept of neutrality as the litmus test of that relationship. These matters are for ourselves to decide and anyone who implies that relationship has an implied coercive threat to bring us to our knees in a post-war revenge for not allowing the use of Shannon, as reported by some elements of the media, is profoundly offensive to both partners in what is an historic transatlantic link. To suggest that Ireland's self-interest lies in acquiescing to anything that any other nation wants of us, lest that nation subsequently reduces its economic commitments to this country, is the expression of a debased notion of nationhood. It is also a gross under-estimation of the American business sector to suggest it would seek out by any business decision to punish our country for sticking to our principles. We are not the 52nd state of the United States. We are a free nation and as a free nation with high educational standards, a strong work ethic and a favourable investment climate, we have attracted the best American corporations to set up in this country. These include Hewlett Packard, Dell, Microsoft, Intel and others and we will continue to do so without tainting our foreign policy and international stance by a cap-tipping fearfulness that expression of difference might spell an end to such investment.

We have long appreciated American support in business, trade and in the Northern Ireland context. We look forward to continuing that and to forging new and stronger links in the years ahead. I regret the rise of cynical anti-Americanism towards business that has surfaced in this country in the recent past. I reject the actions of those who acted illegally to highlight their case and I commend the people of Shannon, Clare and the mid-west in general for their patience and resilience. Shannon Airport's future will not be built on a war economy. The last time a war economy contributed to Shannon was 12 years ago. Ryanair has moved its flights from Shannon to Farranfore and it would pay the Government a hell of a sight better if it implemented its spatial strategy and regional development plans and put in place a decent package for Shannon Airport, which has been done down by the Government over the years.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kenny

I agree with Senator Edward Kennedy that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. America is, of course, hurting since 11 September. We feel their hurt, but earnestly believe the carefully constructed procedures of the UN should have been allowed to take their course, if not for days or weeks, surely for months as Dr. Blix indicated. If he and his colleagues had been allowed to complete their work and had been able to definitively report compliance, or failure to comply, I have no doubt the Security Council would have been able to reach a consensus decision.

While I disagree with the action now being taken by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, it is possible to be opposed to their action without being opposed to the countries they represent. It is possible for friends to differ on a fundamental point of principle. The United States' nearest neighbours, Mexico and Canada, with whom they share close economic ties have not joined in the invasion of Iraq. Senator Kennedy said recently that America cannot be a bully in the world school yard and expect co-operation, friendship and support from the rest of the world. That is true, but how can a wounded United Nations hope to deal with the triple crisis now facing the world, the war against terrorism, the imminent threat of nuclear weapons held by North Korea and now a war with Iraq? The long-term consequences may indeed be catastrophic.

I recognise the Taoiseach has faced a particular difficulty as head of Government in this decision. I also make the point of the absolute consistency of the Fine Gael position and policy in standing fully with the United Nations as our primary support for international peace and security. I remind the House that when we held a similar debate in 1991 at the beginning of the Gulf War, my party voted with the then Government in support of that military action which had been approved by the Security Council. This point of view is put forward with absolute conviction and whatever decision Dáil Éireann makes on the matter, Fine Gael will abide by it and work within its parameters. The Government should be consistent and steadfast in its views. The Dáil should express its opposition to this war and we must not support the war effort in any way.

I say to the Taoiseach that it stretches the English language beyond belief to think he can wash his hands of this, say it is happening somewhere else and we are not part of it because there was no Security Council resolution. How can anyone say that an aeroplane load of military equipment flying through Shannon Airport to a war situation in Iraq, without a UN mandate, does not contribute to, if not represent participation in, that activity? To do so would be to betray our commitment to the United Nations. It would betray Ireland's support for an effective international organisation which can ensure justice, order and international life.

Last evening the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism accepted the point that Ireland was facilitating US war-making. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said time and time again this morning that Ireland was not participating in the war. In the Second World War, France summed up that position as collaboration. Collaboration in a war unsupported by the United Nations runs counter to the beliefs and values of the majority of people in this country. Providing one side in a conflict with crucial support services must be participation, however limited one may perceive it to be. It will be seen by the world as participation. Even if the possibility did not follow that Ireland might become an object for counter-terrorist strikes, participation under the guise of facilitation is contemptible.

I will conclude with a quotation from words uttered in this House about the impact and importance of small nations:

I speak to remind the other small nations that they, too, can and must help build a world peace. They, too, as we all are, are dependent on the United Nations for security, for an equal chance to be heard, for progress towards a world made safe for diversity. The peace-keeping machinery of the United Nations cannot work without the help of the smaller nations, nations whose forces threaten no one and whose forces can thus help create a world in which no nation is threatened.

Great powers have their responsibilities and their burdens, but the smaller nations of the world must fulfil their obligations as well.

Those words were uttered in this House on 28 June 1963 by the then President of America, President Kennedy. He reminded small nations of their right to stand up for their people, their right to stand by their principles and the importance of that stance in building world peace. If the Government has stood by the United Nations time and time again as the Taoiseach has reminded us for the past six months, why has it now changed its stance?

Mr. Cowen

We have not.

Mr. Kenny

Why has it decided to change forever the concept of neutrality as enjoyed in this country? It means that in future the Taoiseach must bring a debate to this House—

The Taoiseach

That is what we are doing.

Mr. Kenny

—and to the European Community in terms of being far more vigorous and having a pro-active approach to a common European defence discussion position.

The House meets under grave circumstances and this is a matter that is not easy to decide. I know that many business people have been fearful of the consequences of the war. Given that position and the clarity of the Fine Gael amendment I ask the Taoiseach to side with his own words and those of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in abiding by the primacy and legitimacy of the United Nations and accept the Fine Gael amendment.

Mr. Rabbitte

At the appropriate time I will move the amendment which is in my name and in the name of my Labour Party colleagues. Already as we speak, a vision of hell has opened to the people of Iraq. While we watch they will endure the effects of some of the most devastating weapons ever used in the history of the world. The likelihood is that thousands will die. In some respects, they may be the lucky ones. Hunger, disease, the consequences of crippling wounds, the loss of bereavement will stalk that land for weeks, perhaps months, perhaps years, after the first bombs fall.

In Baghdad millions of people now live in fear. The broken capital of a broken country, the people of Baghdad offer no threat to the rest of the world. However, they could end up dying in their tens of thousands, and all in the name of liberation. Now that the war has begun, the least terrible outcome is that it will be short. It is to be hoped that at least the dictator Saddam Hussein will not spend thousands of lives in ultimately futile resistance. The sooner the regime collapses, the sooner the agony of the Iraqi people, at least for now, will be over.

Against the background of that agony, it may seem almost trifling for us to debate the issues that confront us here. It has often seemed that our Government regards this issue as trifling. The Opposition can question and seek to engage in debate on this enormous issue, but the Government has chosen to ignore it as much as possible. Not since 11 February has any member of the Government spoken in a major debate on this subject outside of Question Time.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons has had two major debates, on 26 February and on 18 March. Since 26 February last, the Taoiseach has presented himself in the House on only two occasions. So perhaps we should not be surprised that our Government has striven to ignore this vital issue until it could be ignored no longer.

Today we have to address three questions. The first concerns whether there is any moral basis for supporting this war. I say now, as unequivocally as I can, that there is not. The second concerns a decision that is genuinely historic, as Deputy Kenny said. In tabling the motion before us, our Government has already decided to bring to an end a policy that has been a touchstone of our relations with the rest of the world for more than sixty years. When this motion has been adopted, Ireland will no longer be a militarily neutral country. The third question we have to ask ourselves is where do we go from here. We must resolve where we stand, not only in relation to the war now about to begin, but in relation to the new world order that will flow from the events of the next few weeks.

I intend to deal with each of these issues in turn. This war is wrong. Two of the combatants in this war are, and have been, great friends to Ireland, in ways that are beyond measure. The other main combatant is no friend to humanity at all. Our relationship with the United Kingdom is vital to us, now more than ever, and that relationship has been strengthened over recent years by the open and honest dialogue we have conducted in relation to Northern Ireland. Our links with the United States and its people are just as close, and perhaps emotionally closer for many of our people. Outside the United States itself, there was nowhere in the world more affected by the events of 11 September 2001 than here in Ireland. Both of these countries know that our friendship is real and strong, and in any moral choice between them and a dictator and tyrant like Saddam Hussein, the choice, on the face of it, ought to be simple enough. I believe strongly that we have no choice but to express our friendship to them now by saying frankly and candidly, as we would to any friend, that they are profoundly wrong. As a friendly nation and as a neutral country, we must say "no" to this war and "no" means "no". It means no political, moral, strategic, tactical or logistical support.

We should have been making it clear from the outset, in all our dealings with our friends, that we would have great difficulties in supporting this war. The people know that and they sent a strong message to Government when they marched on the streets of Dublin in their thousands.

However, the Government, apart from one dishonest attempt to co-opt the views of the marchers as representing some kind of support for Government policy, effectively ignored that message too. The fact that our Government has chosen to keep its head down and hope the problem would simply go away reflects profound discredit on it. From the beginning of this crisis, it has been obvious to all that a point could be reached where fundamental values and interests could be involved. Yet senior Ministers engaged in cheap opportunism about the supposed anti-Americanism of the anti-war protests. One Minister went so far as to disgracefully label the leadership of the protests as being "proSaddam". Not even the most extreme element in the broad spectrum of anti-war sentiment has anything but revulsion for the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

Instead of facing our dilemma openly, instead of warning our partners and friends of the difficulties we would face, our Government essentially chose to hope and believe that it would get away without ever having to face the issue squarely. When in early February one of the newspapers asked for the views of Government Deputies, they were given the clear line from party head office that there would be no support for military action, or, it was implied, co-operation in the provision of facilities at Shannon, without a second UN resolution.

The official Government line, now abandoned, was that a second resolution was a political imperative. Now the latest Government position seeks to draw an entirely artificial distinction between participating in the war effort on the one hand, and helping that war effort through making the facilities at Shannon available on the other. There was no effort to calculate what might actually happen, no effort to assess the mood of the rest of the world, no effort to prepare our friends and neighbours for the fact that we might have to choose a different way, and choose a different way we must.

The first purpose of the United Nations, according to the UN Charter, is to "bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." That same charter, in its first pages, asserts as principles that the organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members; that members shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the charter; that all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered; that 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.

As we know, the only exceptions to these principles, all of which have been shattered by the decision to launch an invasion against Iraq, are the enforcement measures envisaged by the charter under chapter Vll. However, chapter VII, too, is unequivocal: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

This is a war fought in defiance of the United Nations, not in support of it. It is clear now that the British Government sought to keep the United States in UN discussion for as long as possible. The failure to secure a second resolution has now resulted in both the UK and US Governments being forced to rely on the essentially nonsensical argument that a self-appointed group of countries could discover for themselves a mandate which they were unwilling to put forward in an up front manner to the Security Council itself, for fear of being voted down and then rely on a series of ten year old resolutions each of which ends with the magic formula: "the Security Council resolves to remain seized of the matter." Those countries which voted to keep the UN "seized of the matter" and then unilaterally took the matter out of the Security Council's hands cannot now argue, with any credibility, that their subsequent actions have the force of international law. As Robin Cook said in the House of Commons a couple of nights ago, why invest so much in a second resolution if it was not necessary in the first place?

Incidentally, it is noteworthy that the United Kingdom Government has published the legal advice available to it. That advice has been debunked and dismissed by every serious legal analyst who has looked at it. One commentator, for instance, has referred to the "hapless UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, who was rushed forward on Monday to refute almost all legal opinion and invent an eccentric interplay between resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 to deny the fact that last year's coalition was forged on the explicit understanding that war was for the Security Council to determine."

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Rabbitte

From what the Taoiseach has just said, it would appear that our Government has now similarly, creatively, expediently and in an eccentric way come up with a definition that draws an artificial and entirely spurious distinction between support for the war and permitting the use of facilities at Shannon Airport. Our Government will facilitate and support the war anyway, on the basis of short-term self-interest. Even if not invited to join the coalition of the willing, we are determined, it seems, to be founder members of the coalition of the shilling. What will the Irish Government do differently from what it would have done if there had been a second UN resolution? In tangible terms, absolutely nothing.

I have no wish to be misunderstood on this point. I fully accept the need for national interest as a fundamental component of foreign policy. I recognise fully that, as a small open trading economy, we must seek at all times to reconcile interest and principle and that we cannot lose sight of who our friends are. However, the world is witnessing the beginnings of a war and we are about to vote on measures that will facilitate some of the combatants in that war, although we do not even know why the war is being started. Is the reason liberation? Yes, according to the Prime Minister Mr. Blair – but how many Iraqis must die under fire from American and British weapons of mass destruction to achieve liberation?

Is the reason regime change? No, according to the Prime Minister – but the only American ultimatum is to give Saddam Hussein 48 hours to get out of town. Is the reason disarmament? If so, why are the weapons inspectors being removed? Why is the threat that everyone said was so effective being escalated into the deployment of armaments a hundred times greater than Iraq could ever develop? Is the reason pre-emptive action against a terrorist threat? How can this be sustained when there has been a complete failure to substantiate the assertion of a link between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network? How will this war, or any war, succeed in preventing the emergence of new or more alienated groups?

If we are to look primarily to our own interests, how are they to be served in the longer term by the neutering of the United Nations and the end of multilateralism? How will our interests be served by being forced to take sides in a sterile and bitter debate between the US and UK on the one hand and France and Germany on the other? Those who insist that our economic self-interest can only be met by going in one direction are seeking to over-simplify the argument. US multinational investment in Ireland is hugely important, but so also have been the vast transfers of cash – real cash freely given – that have flowed to Ireland from the EU and the net contributing States over many years under the Common Agricultural Policy and, more importantly, the Cohesion, Structural and Social Funds.

There is hardly a modern bus or train, a railway station, tunnel or motorway that has not been assisted by Europe on a vast financial scale. Local amenities, libraries, water and sewerage services, initiatives in education, all have been facilitated by EU investment involving enormous transfers of resources from Germany and other net contributors to the EU budget. There has not been a single significant public project or policy initiative in Ireland in the past ten years that has not carried a public message proclaiming it to be part-funded by Europe and displaying the EU flag of the circle of stars on the blue background.

EU investment in Ireland has been critical to our transformation. Without it, that transformation and the relative affluence we now enjoy simply could not and would not have happened. That investment was freely given in the form of real cash, in a spirit of solidarity and with a view to transforming the Irish economy, our society, our public services and raising Ireland to a west European standard of living. Therefore, let us not make this decision under the illusion that our self-interest, if not our principles, oblige us to turn our backs on Europe. In any event, it is spurious to suggest that US multinational investment in Ireland would flee if our Government had the courage to assert our traditional neutrality in the face of a war which has not been sanctioned.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will now turn to the second issue we must address, that of Ireland's neutrality. Because the Government hid from the problem, it now finds itself unable to defend what has been a core value of our foreign policy for more than sixty years. In the interests of short-term expediency, it is being abandoned as the Government strives to create an artificial distinction between our stance on the war and our decision on Shannon. As a direct consequence, this is the first Government in the history of this State to decide to put aside the foreign policy and international relations precepts, propositions and principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Mr. Cowen

Not at all.

Mr. Rabbitte

"Ireland", the Constitution states at Article 29.1, "affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation among nations, founded on international justice and morality." Apparently, that is no longer to be so. "Ireland", the Constitution states at Article 29.2, "affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." Again, not any more. "Ireland", the Constitution adopted by the Irish people states at Article 29.3, "accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states." Again, not any more.

Under Article 29.4.2, the Government "may avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure used or adopted for the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations with which the State is associated for the purpose of international co-operation in matters of common concern." The Government has decided not to be bound by the Security Council of the United Nations in respect of Iraq.

The Government's decisions, to ignore popular feeling, set aside the principles of the Constitution, play games in respect of the events at the United Nations Security Council and facilitate at Shannon one of the greatest war machines the world has ever seen, are not run-of-the-mill decisions. They are not simple, pragmatic decisions with precedent and with little long-term effect. The Government has changed the Irish foreign policy stance in the broadest sense. We are no longer a neutral country.

Traditionally, Ireland's neutrality is discussed in the context of military alliances. In time of peace, we define our neutrality in terms of our refusal to join such alliances. In time of war, different issues arise. The Hague Convention of 1907 as a matter of international law has imposed obligations on non-combatants in times of war. Those obligations require strict impartiality as between the belligerent powers and prohibit the offer of assistance to either side with regard to such matters as, for instance, the transport of armed forces. It is simply not possible for the State to argue convincingly as a matter of international law that we can provide facilities at Shannon and remain neutral in this conflict.

The only exception to this has always been clearly recognised as arising from our duties as a member of the United Nations. It has been widely accepted, for example, that if a state is called upon, under Articles 42 and 43 of the United Nations Charter, to take military action against an aggressor, that state loses its neutrality only to the extent that it complies with the direction of the Security Council.

We have chosen, in an act of ultimate hypocrisy, to put before the Dáil a motion that says we are not supporting the war, that sheds crocodile tears about the war, but nevertheless in its closing lines asks us to facilitate the war. We cannot be under an illusion. We are not just being asked to support and facilitate a single military action. We are asked to support and facilitate the rejection of the United Nations and the Security Council, to support a foreign policy doctrine that permits pre-emptive strikes by democratic nations and to support a policy of regime change, but we should not do so. We are asked to facilitate a convoy of military personnel and material that will be used to devastate a country – it is a country where the commercial contracts for reconstruction have already been signed – but we should not do so.

This war is illegitimate. Those who invested so much effort in securing a second UN resolution on the matter, and failed, would now have us believe that the resolution was not necessary after all. Originally, we were told that this war was to protect the world from weapons of mass destruction. Then it was about regime change. Now it is about liberation. The UN has been damaged – we do not yet know how badly. Relations between EU partners have been sundered – we do not yet know how deeply. People will suffer and die – we do not yet know how many.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I wish to share my time with Deputies Sargent, Gregory, Joe Higgins and Connolly, by agreement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The following four amendments have been tabled in the names of the Sinn Féin Deputies:

In the first line of the first paragraph, before "guarantor" to insert "sole".

In the second line of the first paragraph, before "appropriate" to insert "only".

After the first paragraph to insert the following:

"– calls on all states in possession of weapons of mass destruction to put them verifiably beyond use;

"– condemns the deplorable human rights record of the Hussein regime in Iraq, and supports self-determination for the Kurdish people;".

To delete all words after the second paragraph and substitute the following:

"– deplores the fact that the US-British-Spanish ultimatum has effectively sabotaged the work of the UN arms inspectors;

"– unequivocally rejects the doctrine of pre-emption;

"– recognises that the planned US-British invasion of Iraq is proceeding without a UN mandate, and is counter to international law and the will of the international community;

"– affirms that this Government will not participate in or aid this war in any way;

"– affirms that overflight and landing privileges shall be immediately withdrawn for the duration of the war for all foreign aircraft carrying troops, munitions, and other supplies intended to assist the war effort, in keeping with our rights and duties as a neutral state, our laws, and constitution;

"– calls on the United Nations to assume a central role in securing the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples and the reconstruction of Iraq, in which Ireland will play its full part.".

It is a sad day. We meet against the backdrop of war unleashed and its, as yet, unknown consequences. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs seek to defend the indefensible. I appeal to those in the ranks of Fianna Fáil for whom this motion is a clear betrayal of fundamental principles to take courage from the lead of those Labour Members of Parliament in Britain who stood against their party leader's position and intent. I urge them to vote today with their conscience.

Mr. Cowen

It never happened in the Deputy's party.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

No argument of principle has been advanced by the Government, least of all by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to justify the continued provision of Shannon for the US military machine now at war with Iraq.

Mr. C. Lenihan

We will not raise the issue of disarmament with the Deputy.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

We are offered instead the entirely disingenuous argument that stop-overs and overflights by US military aircraft have always been facilitated. The Taoiseach even cited use of landing facilities by US military planes during the Vietnam War. Has he made a judgment of the rights or wrongs of that facilitation? Has he assessed our role at that time in light of all we now know of that appalling war in south-east Asia? Does the Taoiseach believe that Ireland's facilitation of the US military machine during the Vietnam War, when chemical weapons such as agent orange and napalm were unleashed on the civilian population of that country, was right or wrong? It is conservatively estimated that more than two million people died in that war. This is hardly a glorious precedent to cite in again justifying Ireland's facilitation of the US military on route to war.

The Taoiseach has also attempted to create a smokescreen by stating that France and Germany, which are opposed to the US-British axis of war, are facilitating overflights and landings. These countries are members of the NATO military alliance, this State is not. Austria is a neutral state and it will not allow overflights. According to the Taoiseach – it is repeatedly affirmed – we have a policy of military neutrality, but what exactly does that mean?

The Government has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to Resolution 1441. However, when the United States and Britain effectively tore up that resolution the Government just sat and watched. This is a continuation of the pathetic and shameful stance of the Irish Government, which has squandered a real opportunity to assert the independence and integrity of small nations and which, in its position on the UN Security Council, wasted a trust placed in it by small and neutral countries. It sided instead with the powerful, with might, and ignored the wishes of the Irish people and its duty to play a pivotal role for dialogue, negotiation and peace on the international stage. Has our history, distant and contemporary, taught the Government anything? Does the Taoiseach believe that this war is about freeing the Iraqi people? If so, he clearly knows little of the history of Iraq and the Middle East. In his address this morning, the Taoiseach stated: "The provision of facilities does not make Ireland a member of a military coalition nor does anybody regard us as such." The Taoiseach emphasised the final point. I counter that claim and say that the Taoiseach is wrong. I quote from President Bush's war declaration when he stated:

More than 35 countries are giving crucial support, from the use of naval and air bases to help with intelligence and logistics to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honour of serving in our common defence.

The Taoiseach's claim that nobody views us as such clearly holds no weight when President Bush himself affirms that the Government's participation and support puts it firmly among those in the coalition. I urge support for the amendments as tabled by my colleagues in the House.

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy is on the road to Damascus.

Mr. Sargent

The Green Party has tabled the following amendment to the Government motion:

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

"– condemning as illegal the imminence of military action by a United States led coalition against Iraq in not allowing United Nations weapons inspectors to continue the ongoing process of disarmament in that country;

– reaffirms Ireland's commitment to the United Nations as the guarantor of collective global security and as the appropriate forum for the resolution of disputes threatening international peace and security;

– expresses its deep regret that efforts within the Security Council to reach agreement on how to address the question of Iraqi non-compliance have failed;

– condemns the decision of the coalition to launch the war in the absence of agreement on a further resolution;

– resolves that Ireland will not participate in any way in the coalition's proposed military action against Iraq;

– expresses its earnest belief that military action should not occur;

– declares its commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Iraq;

– calls on the Government to ensure that Ireland will be able to contribute rapidly to the humanitarian effort in Iraq;

– calls on the United Nations to assume a central role in securing the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and the reconstruction of Iraq in which Ireland will play its full part; and

– declares that its territory, airspace and territorial waters are closed to the military craft of, and civilian craft chartered by the military authorities of, any of the states involved in the war."

In a few minutes, workers throughout the country will stop for ten minutes in solidarity with the causalities and the future casualties of the current war in Iraq, and I speak in solidarity with those many thousands of people. The Green Party has no doubt that the attacks by the US led forces on Iraq are illegal. This view is supported widely here, in the US and in the United Nations. I read clear legal opinion to that effect today. Our party has no doubt that the Government's approval of the use of Shannon by the US military is an effective participation by this country in this illegal and bloody act of aggression against Iraq. This view is in line with the other neutral EU states which have already said "no" to the US military and have withdrawn overflight and refuelling facilities.

The Taoiseach implies that saying "no" is an act of hostility towards the US. By saying "yes" to the US military he is saying "no" to the United Nations. He is defying the United Nations. This finally exposes the Taoiseach as a fraud as he has repeatedly stated in the House that he stands by the United Nations. All of us are called now to stand by the United Nations which is bruised by the bullying tactics of the US and UK governments. This Taoiseach, and the Fianna Fáil-PD Government are a disgrace to the honourable tradition of de Valera and Aiken who stood for active neutrality, peacekeeping and the United Nations.

Even on the basis of economic self-interest, the Government is wrong. Significant numbers of e-mails are being received by my office from people who work in US companies in Ireland. They are angry that they are being used as justification for the continued use of the facilities at Shannon by the US military. One can see on the Internet the dozens of US cities that oppose the war. They include New York City, the area with most reason to be angered by the hostility and terrorism of 11 September.

The Taoiseach has told us that Shannon has 40 minutes of business depending on refuelling. He was not so quick to say that only 3% of the business is US military refuelling. We believe that the continued use of Shannon by the US military jeopardises business at Shannon and the future of people's livelihoods there. We appeal to the Taoiseach not only to respect the law of Ireland and the United Nations but to write urgently to the White House and to ask President Bush to refrain from using land mines, cluster bombs, depleted uranium and nuclear bombs. Civilians will be more affected by these weapons than combatants. They will affect not only Iraqis but US citizens. They will affect Michael Bermingham, an Irishman, who is still in Baghdad. Will the Taoiseach make use of the sacrifice that Michael Bermingham is making in risking his own life to make the argument to the US administration and impress on it that war will kill innocent people from different countries?

The Green Party demands that the Government makes a stand for international law. I call on the Taoiseach to withdraw Shannon and overflight facilities immediately from the US military before any more Iraqi blood stains the Constitution or the Irish people. I ask him to accept the Green Party amendments.

Mr. Gregory

I propose to move the amendment in my name and that of Deputy Joe Higgins. I oppose the Government motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should point out to the Deputy that amendment No. 8, in the name of Deputy Kenny, must be disposed of before the other amendments can be moved. They can, however, be spoken to.

Mr. Gregory

That amendment states:

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

– Noting the imminent bombardment of Iraq with US and British weapons of mass destruction and the imminent invasion of Iraq by the armed forces of the United States and Britain;

– Notes the monumental hypocrisy of the Government in failing to condemn outright the actions of the United States and Britain despite declaring that it was a political imperative that a second UN Security Council Resolution be passed to authorise a military assault on Iraq;

– Declares that the invasion of Iraq is an imperialist venture to secure Iraq's oil fields for United States capitalism and extend imperialist control over the Middle East region;

– Declares that allowing the US military to use Shannon Airport has made the Irish Government complicit in the invasion of Iraq and an accomplice in the death and destruction that will result;

– Demands the immediate withdrawal of any facilities in the State for US military aircraft or US military personnel and demands no permission be given for overflights of US military aircraft;

– Noting that in 1988 the then Fianna Fáil Government had extensive business dealings with the vile Saddam Hussein dictatorship,

– Further noting that his dictatorship was supported and armed by the United States and Britain in the 1980's,

– Declares that it is for the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam Hussein; and

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

I oppose the Government motion because Ireland should be seen to act as an independent neutral country and should only facilitate actions sanctioned by the United Nations.

How many times did we hear in this House the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs give solemn commitments that Ireland would at all times be guided by the decisions of the United Nations Security Council and would only facilitate actions authorised by the United Nations and Dáil Éireann. We now see the deceit and hypocrisy of those commitments made to the Irish people. To make matters worse we now have the cringing example of moral cowardice in the Taoiseach's statement that to withdraw facilities from the US military machine while it is bombing the people of Iraq might be seen as a hostile act by the Bush administration in the US. That is a fine way to uphold Irish neutrality and independence.

The Government has disgraced itself not only by not withdrawing overflight and refuelling facilities at Shannon but also by not condemning the illegal unilateral action of this oil motivated war. I am not surprised that on this issue of war against the people of Iraq this Fianna Fáil led Government, just like in its social policy, is finally exposed as the most reactionary right wing political bunch in this State masquerading as a party of the centre. Young people and, indeed, most people here will be appalled to see a Government that claims to believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions facilitate in any way a war effort that has neither international agreement or domestic support.

I ask the Taoiseach and the Government how many civilian casualties must there be in Iraq before the Government will end its complicity and close Shannon Airport to US military planes? As the Taoiseach is, by his own words, afraid to make an independent stand at the moment lest it be seen as hostile to the United States, may I ask the question: if this war lasts and the US bombing campaign, that they say will shock and awe, takes its toll on innocent civilians, how long will it take before this Government will have the moral courage to stand up to Mr. Bush and say that Ireland is independent; Ireland is neutral and, we will have no part in this unnecessary inhumanity?

Mr. Connolly

In seeking to justify an invasion of Iraq by the self-styled "coalition of the willing" US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, used the pretext of Iraq's retention of chemical or biological weapons in defiance of repeated UN resolutions. He said that Saddam's use of chemical agents against Iraqi Kurds and Iranian soldiers clearly demonstrates that he is capable of facilitating the use of weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq's chemical or biological weapons could pose a threat to the United States. Even if that is true, a US led ground war aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein amounts to a dangerous over reaction.

Iraq is far from alone in the possession of chemical or biological weapons. Of the 193 nations only 115 have signed both the treaties banning chemical and biological weapons. Twenty-five countries, including Israel, Egypt and Syria have signed neither treaty and 53 countries have signed only one treaty. Like Iraq, many of these 78 countries have oppressive, authoritarian regimes.

Obviously, the United States cannot forcibly change all the repressive governments in countries which may have chemical or biological weapons, or the means by which terrorists might acquire them. A major war aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein may very well increase the risk of terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction and may fuel the fury of Islamic fundamentalists, thereby galvanising them into obtaining chemical, biological or other radiological weapons to use on behalf of the Islamic world.

Last Sunday night President Bush fell back on his old arguments. He correctly noted that Iraq had obligations under UN Resolution 678 and 687 to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction but he made a poor argument that these resolutions serve as his justification for an attack on Iraq. The United States is hardly the sole interpreter or arbiter of the Security Council. Of the other 14 Security Council members, President Bush could count on only three votes for immediate war, Britain, Bulgaria and Spain. The other 11 Security Council members take Resolutions 678 and 687 very seriously, seriously enough to try to find actual evidence of weapons of mass destruction before they consider an attack to be justified.

Nuclear weapons are the most lethal weapons ever devised. Using the possibility that Iraq might possess them as a pretext for war is hypocritical in the extreme. Not only does the US have them but so does a host of other countries, including Russia, Britain, France, Israel and Pakistan. The US could not prove or show that Iraq had them. Its key document alleging uranium shipments from Niger turned out to be a crude forgery. Complacency in the commission of a crime against peace amounts to a war crime.

Mr. J. Higgins

The invasion of Iraq is a naked grab to secure the Iraqi oilfields for US capitalism and to secure imperialist control over the Middle East. That is understood by the majority of Irish people and by the veritable human tide that demonstrated against war around the world on 15 February. It must be the ultimate obscenity that the richest nations on earth are using their massive technological abilities to unleash, even as we speak, the most ferocious weaponry of destruction on the heads of the men, women and children of Iraq, who are already seriously weakened by a sanctions regime imposed by the leaders of those same nations, which should be described as nothing short of genocidal. The sanctions weakened them beyond the capacity of overthrowing Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.

Had the awesome technology and incredible resources invested in the creation of devices to shred and incinerate ever greater numbers of human beings been invested over the decades in resolving the problems of humanity, war could have been eliminated from the face of the globe. However, the leaders launching this war are the same ones who armed, supported and comforted Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship, as did Fianna Fáil Ministers who eagerly did business with the beast in Baghdad months after the slaughter of the Kurds in Halabja.

The Government's response to the launch of a criminal, imperialist war, as represented in the motion before the Dáil, is beneath contempt. Having hidden for months behind the UN and the possibility of a second Security Council resolution authorising a military strike, it greets the trampling of the UN by Bush and Blair by stating that it "Regrets that the coalition finds it necessary to launch a campaign." The mildness of the rebuke would scarcely be appropriate in commenting on a mild street brawl between a few drunks in the Taoiseach's constituency, but it beggars belief that it is all the Government can muster in face of the most murderous assault by imperial powers on a virtually defenceless people. It does, however, befit a Government whose conduct throughout this crisis has been gutless, spineless and destitute of moral conviction. It is a Government led by a Taoiseach shackled to the foreign policy of the extreme right-wing cabal which has secured control over the US Government under President Bush, and a Tánaiste whose moral vision remains strictly confined to fumblings in the greasy tills of multinational corporations.

It defies credibility that the Government maintains today that the facilitation of the US military on its way to invade Iraq is not a facilitation of the invasion. If the owners of a petrol station had refuelled the cars that came to slaughter our people in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and sent the bombers on their way in full knowledge of what they were about to do, would the Government not take the view that their hands would be stained with the blood of the innocent victims? What is the difference between these bombers and the bombers the Irish Government is facilitating on their war to Baghdad?

If the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats backbenchers go as meekly into the Government lobbies today as the sheep the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, shoved into the Department of Agriculture on a different occasion, they are equally complicit in what is now unfolding. I demand the immediate withdrawal of the facilities for the US military at Shannon and an end to all overflights. It is for the Iraqi people to remove the Saddam Hussein dictatorship and determine their future. I call for the future of the peoples and resources of Iraq and the Middle East generally to be determined by the peoples in that region based on the principles of freedom, justice, democracy and human rights, free from both local dictatorships and imperialist and corporate interference.

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney)

I wish to share my time with the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Harney

The outbreak of war in the most politically volatile region of the world is a most serious issue which requires serious and thoughtful debate. The United Nations Security Council has agreed many resolutions on Iraq, the most recent being Resolution 1441 last November. It was the 17th in a series of resolutions. We all regret that the Security Council has not been the forum through which the will of the international community for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein has been given effect in unison and in finality. We all regret there has been no second resolution. Peace-loving nations have been divided in a way they should never be and in a way that has only given comfort to Saddam Hussein. No democratically elected Government threatens war or sends its people into war lightly. The United States, Britain, Denmark and Australia are putting their people in harm's way in a cause they believe is right, even in the absence of a sharing of this belief by some of their close allies and friends. They are supported by democracies like Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. These are not rogue, outlaw nations.

I do not accept that the UN Security Council should be written off because it reached an impasse in this crisis. Ireland will work with others to learn lessons for effective multilateral security at the United Nations. We will work with the world as we find it, not in the world as it was or as we would wish it to be. In these circumstances, it will do Ireland and the international community no good to engage in a blame game among democracies, particularly in the European Union. Ireland has a positive role to play and will be more positive the more it is rooted in the realities of our shared values and interests and the shared security challenges facing our friends in the world.

Twelve years have passed since the Gulf War of 1991 and it seems that little has changed. Saddam Hussein has continually defied the will of the United Nations and the international community. He has violated international law, human rights and his own people. He has gassed women and children in their homes, personally murdered his Cabinet members and betrayed and killed members of his own family. He has shown contempt for 17 resolutions of the Security Council and has broken the terms on which the Gulf War was ended, the terms under which he was spared further attack. He has plotted to assassinate a former US president, maintained weapons of mass destruction, funded terrorists, impoverished his people and destroyed their wealth.

In a very dangerous region, Saddam Hussein has played with fire, invading four countries. He has been a destabilising, malign influence on that region and on the world. While regretting our divisions, let us be clear that the recent failure of diplomacy among democracies has not been the cause of this war. The cause of war is Saddam Hussein, his actions and his decisions. He has brought it upon himself. He started it in August 1990. After 1991, when a just cause prevailed against him, he refused to accept the will of the United Nations. Since November last, when Resolution 1441 was passed, he has insisted to the world that foot-dragging was the same as full disarmament. He has treated weapons inspections as a game which he could play to win if only the full-time whistle was never blown. The war that he started in 1990 is now being continued to the end.

Mr. Boyle

Are we supporting it?

Ms Harney

Twelve years ago this House was also recalled to debate Ireland's response to the Gulf War and the unanimous position at the UN supporting all necessary means to restore peace and security in the region. The Government said, and the House agreed, that the provision of refuelling facilities at Shannon did not constitute participation in war, for which approval of the House would be necessary under the Constitution. Fine Gael, to its credit and in its best traditions, supported the Government then. The Labour Party and The Workers Party opposed the motion. The status of United Nations resolutions has not affected their arguments one way or another.

Precisely the same arguments are being repeated now. They said then that the war was not a UN war but a US war. They claimed it was about oil, not human security. They said more time should be given to Saddam Hussein to allow the sanctions to work. The Leader of the Workers Party said that, in time, sanctions would bite and force compliance from Saddam Hussein. He and others later condemned the bite of UN sanctions against Iraq and even then, sanctions did not achieve disarmament.

Despite UN Security Council Resolution 678, a resolution that is still relevant, they said allowing military aircraft to refuel at Shannon meant we would cease to be militarily neutral. If the Opposition was right then, it cannot be right again today. If we lost our military neutrality in 1991, even under cover of a UN Security Council resolution, we cannot lose it again now. With bankrupt moral equivalence, the Labour Party told the House that figures like Saddam Hussein are, at the end of the day, monsters and that it is those of us in the west who are the Frankensteins. I reject all moral equivalence, then and now, between democracies and the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.

In many respects, little has changed in the rhetoric since 1991 but the reality, if not the rhetoric, has changed profoundly. We have learned some hard lessons which members of Governments of all parties have learned at first hand since that debate 12 years ago. For example, in June 1993, the then Leader of the Labour Party, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Deputy Dick Spring, accepted in the House that the United States had been justified in launching a missile attack on Baghdad without UN clearance after the discovery of Saddam's plot to assassinate former President George Bush.

Since 1991, Ireland has had the most significant progress ever in ending conflict and terrorism on our island. The peace process was the crowning achievement and the lasting legacy of the 1990s. All who participated in successive Governments know that, but for the support of the United States and the sustained political commitment of the British Government, we would never have made progress.

At the international level, we went from the hope of a new effectiveness for the UN freed from the Cold War stalemate to the bitter disappointments of Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. We learned that atrocities could sometimes only be stopped by force. Where the will to use force was absent, hundreds and thousands of people paid the price with their lives. Those of us in the international community, the UN and the European Union could only offer feeble apologies and firm purpose of amendment when it was too late.

Most importantly, the world changed on 11 September 2001. We knew immediately it meant major historic changes. We see one consequence today.

Some people object that there is no direct link between the atrocities of 11 September and Saddam Hussein's regime but let us deal with realities. The reality is that the US Government and the United States people have changed their perceptions of their own security in their own land and beyond, as have the British Government and others. Some in this country claim they are wrong to see their security interests in this new way. Some even claim they are dishonestly using the cover of 11 September to justify ulterior motives about Saddam and Iraq. This is a free country and people are entitled to their opinions, including some very misguided ones.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

The Tánaiste's own party members are opposed to the war.

Mr. Eoin Ryan

We are all opposed to the war.

Ms Harney

What is the Government's role in this matter? The Government is not another pundit, opinion writer or bar stool expert. It has to lead, take tough decisions, interact responsibly with other States and, more importantly, with our friends and partners.

The Fine Gael party has a proud tradition in this respect. Over the years it has never been afraid to do what was right for the country. I was surprised to read the comments of the Leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, in this morning's The Irish Times in which he apparently said that he wants to close Shannon to our close friend, the United States, so as not to antagonise the Government of North Korea. Is the Leader of Fine Gael seriously suggesting—

Mr. G. Mitchell

That is nonsense.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is a cheap misrepresentation.

Ms Harney

It is not a cheap misrepresentation. Did the Deputy read the article?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste without interruption.

Ms Harney

That type of comment might be expected from Deputy Higgins of the Socialist Party but coming from Deputy Kenny it is an insult to the fine traditions of Fine Gael and the distinguished role that party—

Mr. J. Higgins

Who supported him? The Tánaiste's colleagues sent him beef from our programme and he launched the most ferocious weapons including poisonous gas, etc.—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. The Tánaiste without interruption. Deputy Joe Higgins should resume his seat.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Tánaiste should talk to her colleagues if she wants to know who supported Saddam Hussein. She should talk to the Minister, Deputy Brennan, who sat down with him—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste should be allowed to proceed without interruption. Deputy Higgins, please resume your seat.

Ms Harney

I listened to Deputy Higgins and everybody else and I should have the right to be able to finish my contribution.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Tánaiste's colleagues sent him the beef. She should not try to smear principled socialists—

A Deputy

The Deputy should put on his red jacket.

Mr. Kenny

Will the Tánaiste give way for a moment?

Ms Harney

Yes.

Mr. Kenny

The Tánaiste's comment about North Korea is off the wall. No such intention was stated in my article.

Ms Harney

I read Deputy Kenny's article this morning. Unfortunately, I do not have it with me but he referred to North Korea in the article.

Mr. Kenny

North Korea is part of the axis of evil as identified by the United States.

Ms Harney

The Deputy referred to it in his article this morning. Is that not correct?

Mr. Kenny

North Korea, Iraq and Iran. We are moving on to deal with terrorist activities and North Korea is next on the list.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste to proceed without further interruption.

Mr. Boyle

The Tánaiste is debasing the debate.

Ms Harney

Has Deputy Kenny read the article? North Korea is mentioned, and the Deputy knows that.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Just because he mentions Israel does not make him Jewish.

Ms Harney

In relation to other democracies, and particularly our closest friends, it is not the Government's role to call into question their motivation, honesty and responsibility to their own people.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

What about legality?

Ms Harney

We may not agree with their judgment but we cannot presume we know better in terms of their security or that we are capable of making more moral choices.

Mr. Boyle

That is obvious.

Ms Harney

We are not debating today the position that any other country should take, but what we should do ourselves. There comes a time when we must decide alone and not look to others to provide precedents, cover or justification. It is called being an independent State.

We have no responsibility for any other country but our own. Our history, relationships and interests with the US and Britain are unique to us. Our ties with them run deep – historically, culturally, socially and economically. These are our closest friends who have helped us work for peace over terrorism in our own country. We accept their honesty. We trust them as friends. We appreciate their help in so many ways. Who can forget the special treatment arranged for us in Donnelly and Morrison visas when we had failed our own people economically? Who can forget the palpable closeness we felt after 11 September? America has remained engaged in our peace process through both Administrations and for that we are very grateful. We want and need the continual engagement of the US and the British Government on our vital national interest but we will surely put at risk the spirit and strength of that engagement if we question their motives, legality and honesty at a time when they are asking their own citizens to put their lives at risk in war. This is reality. Britain and the US are our close friends. They help us when we need them. We work closely with them. We will not deny them now when they need us.

It is not about an economic trade-off. It is about the deep foundations of our closest relationships. If, for example, the Government made a deliberate decision to withdraw facilities we have agreed up to now at Shannon or to refuse overflight permission, the significance of the action would not be military or strategic. It would be political.

To withdraw permission now would not be the decision of a close friend. We would be questioning the honesty of their stated security concerns. We would be sitting as judge and jury on the legality of their actions, even though the UN Security Council has made no judgment and there is no clear-cut legal position. We would be saying it was irrelevant of them to cite 17 UN resolutions in support of their actions. We would be saying we were standing in judgment on the morality of their actions and we condemn them—

Mr. Eamon Ryan

We do.

Ms Harney

—but we would still ask them to help us when it matters to us.

These would not be the actions of friends who want to remain close friends, and they are not the actions of a responsible Irish Government.

We cannot keep the different aspects of our relationships in separate compartments, even if both parties wanted to do that. Politics does not work that way because human relations do not work that way. I particularly regret that serious divisions have arisen within the European Union on this issue. Just as I, like everyone else, hope this war will be short, I hope that the divisions in Europe will also be short. We are committed to developing a common foreign and security policy. This crisis can impel us to work harder. Common foreign and security policy will work on the basis of equality among member states and a firm purpose to resolve differences. It is also important that Europe and America work hard together in the coming months on peace between Israel and Palestine. Ireland can also play a part in supporting this urgent work. We can and will make a distinctive contribution to humanitarian relief and reconstruction in post-war in Iraq, just as we did in Kosovo. It is a practical way in which we can show our commitment to the people of Iraq.

These are grave and dangerous times. As an independent State, we have decisions of the utmost seriousness to make. The Government made the right decision yesterday. It is based on our responsibilities to our people, friends, traditions and beliefs. We do not make policy in isolation. We will not abandon our friends at this time.

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I regret that the United Nations Security Council was unable to reach agreement in terms of a new resolution. However, it is important to make it clear that, even if it had, if we were to participate in any conflict, it would be necessary for the Dáil to pass a resolution. There is no resolution on such participation before the Dáil. There is no need for such a resolution because Ireland is not participating in any conflict. We are continuing a position on over-flights and landings of US aircraft in Ireland which has existed since the 1950s. I do not believe that anybody can seriously argue against the point that if we were to withdraw this facility at this time, it would be seen as a hostile or antagonistic act. Some people may chose, if they so wish, to find themselves stranded at a crossroads in relation to a matter such as this, but the truth is that we live in the real world. For generations there have been familial, cultural, historical, economic and social relationships between Ireland and the United States of America and between Ireland and the United Kingdom. There is no point in pretending that it would make no difference if were we to withdraw a facility which has existed since the late 1950s when it would.

With a view to introducing some balance into this debate, people should honestly ask themselves which countries on the planet have stood by democracy, human rights, liberty and human dignity down through the decades. If one compares the record of the United States-led coalition with that of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the reality is there is no comparison between the record of each on human rights.

It is always regrettable that a war of this nature is entered into, but it always means that countries on the periphery of Europe such as this, countries which are traditionally neutral, have difficult decisions to make. It is important in this context that we recognise that we have a sovereign duty to the sovereign Irish people. It is our bounden duty to ensure that whatever decision is made is made in the interests of the Irish people going forward and is not based on purely political reasons but reasons that are tangible and mean something in terms of people's everyday lives. In that context, there is little doubt but that there is a revulsion among the greater Irish community about the fact that war has started and will continue for some time, but there is also a recognition of the fact that Ireland's relationships with the United States of America and others in the coalition are such that we could not at this point decide to unilaterally withdraw a facility which had been existence since the 1950s. I do not believe that to do so would be in the greater interests of the Irish people. I am quite convinced that it would be a grave mistake. I honestly believe that if the views of the parties opposite were implemented, we would be led into a cul-de-sac, that we would be flailing aimlessly in the dark for some decades to come and that it would take us some time to extricate ourselves from that.

This situation is obviously one which everyone regrets, but nonetheless it is one we must recognise. There is no point in trying to pretend that matters are different from what they are. There is no point in aspiring towards a utopian society. The aspiration may be admirable but its achievement shall never be seen. In those circumstances, we must examine the position realistically. We must examine it from the perspective of the future of the Irish people which is precisely what the Government has done.

I respect the views of parties and Members opposite on their genuinely held beliefs, but I honestly believe they are gravely mistaken. It is patently untrue to suggest that a country which continues to extend a facility which has existed since the 1950s is now participating in a war. If Ireland were participating in a war, that would have required a resolution of this House. The fact that no such resolution is required is proof positive that Ireland is not participating in a conflict.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Truth is usually the first casualty of war, but the first casualty of this war has been the United Nations, and I earnestly hope the injury will not be fatal.

In September last the UN Security Council – all 15 members – unanimously passed Resolution 1441. This clearly demonstrates that agreement can be achieved by the UN Security Council. Working through the Security Council should not be dismissed as a lost cause. At that time the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs made it clear that Ireland, then a member of the Security Council, voted for Resolution 1441 because a second resolution would be required to authorise attacks on Iraq. In other words, Resolution 1441 did not give that authorisation.

On numerous occasions in this House, Government spokespersons have listed, as one of their three priority objectives, the preservation of the primacy and importance of the Security Council. The Taoiseach told the Dáil on 13 November last that Resolution 1441 "was not a mandate for military action". He also stated, as late as 19 February last, that securing a second UN Resolution was "a political imperative". The Minister for Foreign Affairs told the Dail on 11 February last that "force should only be used as a last resort when every other possibility has been tried and failed". The UN's chief weapons inspector, Dr. Hans Blix, has stated that a critical path solution to the Iraqi crisis could be found in a short time using Resolution 1284. Dr. Blix is due to make a further report this very week. In these circumstances, and given that a second resolution was considered so important that it was pursued at the UN by Britain until Monday last when it was withdrawn, how can war on Iraq be justified at this time?

The US and Britain may achieve their objectives in Iraq, and they may do so quickly, but there are two gambles. One is the gamble that they can, within a reasonably short period, win the war in Iraq. The other gamble is with the future of the UN Security Council. Is this something worth risking at this time and in the circumstances as they have evolved?

The UN Charter provides the opportunity for a world in which there will be control, on a collective basis, over aggression and aggressors. The continued pursuit of unarmed neutrality of the kind that Ireland has come to expect is only possible if there is collective security. This is why I have never understood the attitude of certain Members of this House who are against both unilateral and multilateral action even if duly authorised by the UN Security Council. They have put themselves in the same camp as those who believe that the UN Security Council is irrelevant and can and should be ignored. What a terrible price to pay to be popular with those who say they are against war in all circumstances. If nations take the view that they are against war in all circumstances, what is the point of the UN or the Security Council? Are we not simply unleashing international powers to act as they wish, when they wish. It is for the UN Security Council, under Chapter VII of its charter, to decide when war is justified.

The UN Security Council is an imperfect body, as are the Irish Government, the Dáil, the Supreme Court and the European Union institutions. However, if we do not respect institutions there cannot be collective security and the result will be mayhem and anarchy. The rise of world tensions and the death of 60 million people in the Second World War, 40 million of them in Europe, followed the failure of the League of Nations. This was succeeded by the United Nations to prevent a recurrence of such human loss and suffering. A weak League of Nations allowed Japan to invade Manchuria, allowed Italy to invade Abyssinia, modern day Ethiopia, and gave the green light to Hitler, who knew there was no collective security organisation to prevent him from pursuing his evil deeds.

At this time, the United Nations Security Council has not approved attacks on Iraq. There is no immediate threat to the security of the region from Iraq, unlike the Kuwait invasion which gave rise to the Gulf War, approval for which was given by this House. I have listened to anti-American speeches, dressed up as constructive comment, and I regret and resent them. I acknowledge the close economic and personal ties between Ireland and the US and the great contribution made by the United States to international security and the free world. I note the writings of the former US President, Jimmy Carter, that war cannot be justified in the current circumstances. I also note the resolution passed by the New York city council and the views of many responsible US leaders who do not share the views of President Bush at this time. To be against an attack on Iraq, in these circumstances, is not to be anti-American.

My reservations about this war at this time and in this way are based on principle. Speaking in Dáil Éireann on 18 January 1991, while moving a motion in support of UN Resolution 678 authorising military action against Iraq, the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, said:

Ireland has always been one of the countries most strongly committed to the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs. It is vital in our view that there be an international code of conduct to regulate what would otherwise be the anarchic relations between sovereign states. We have always believed that it is small states and nations like our own, who have fought to assert their rights and their own identity through history, who particularly need an effective international organisation to provide a structure of justice and order in international life. Without such a structure the bigger and more powerful states will no doubt survive by arming intensively to defend themselves but the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong, as has been the case through much of history.

He went on to quote the address by Éamon de Valera, the new President of the Council of the League of Nations, speaking in September 1932 when he said:

The only alternative to competitive armaments is the security for national rights which an uncompromising adherence to the principles of the Covenant will afford. The avoidance of wars and of the burden of preparatory armaments is of such concern to humanity that no state should be permitted to jeopardise the common interest by selfish action contrary to the Covenant, and no State is powerful enough to stand for long against the League if the governments in the League and their peoples are determined that the Covenant shall be upheld.

The then Taoiseach continued:

This has also been our consistent approach to the United Nations, which is the second effort in this century, after the league crumbled in the face of aggression in the 1930s, to build a world of order and justice through an international organisation of sovereign states based on the principle of collective security. What does collective security mean? Quite simply, it means all the member states of the United Nations pledged to accept the charter as their code of conduct in international relations and agreed to act collectively, in accordance with the charter and through the organs it has established, against any of their number who clearly and persistently violate it.

All members pledged to accept the charter as their code of conduct in international relations. The relevant section of the UN Charter is Chapter VII. This deals with action in respect of threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Article 39 of the charter makes it clear that: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and stability." Article 40 states:

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41 states: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures." Article 42 states:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and any other operations by air, sea or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Clearly, it is the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations, not any members of the Security Council acting on their own authority, which makes this decision under international law. Article 43 states:

1. All members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council.

Article 48 makes it clear:

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article after article makes it clear that it is for the Security Council to make these decisions, not any state acting unilaterally or two states acting bilaterally.

What has happened, given the views of the then Taoiseach in 1991 and of Éamon de Valera, as President of the Council of the League in 1932, to bring about such change on the part of the current Taoiseach that he would lay before the House, at the eleventh hour, proposals which run counter to those well established principles?

Mr. Cowen

That is not true.

Mr. G. Mitchell

If members states act in their own selfish interests, it cannot be long before the UN goes the way of the League of Nations. Who will then secure the international peace? Have we forgotten that 60 million people lost their lives in the Second World War because of the failure of collective security through the League of Nations? It was this experience that gave rise to the birth of the United Nations. Respect for democratic institutions is what western leaders say they want of the Iraqi regime. Respect for democratic institutions is vital, which is why the Dáil should have been in session before today and the role of the United Nations should be upheld.

War in itself cannot always be opposed. There is such a thing as a just war and a war lawfully declared. If Hitler had been confronted in the early days of his aggression, for example, thousands of people would probably have died but, because he was not confronted, 40 million people died in Europe and 60 million died throughout the world. Decisions of life and death are, at times, the business of democratically elected Governments. These decisions can only be taken subject to the control of democratically created institutions.

Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter makes it clear that approval for such war is the agreed role of the United Nations Security Council. The UN Security Council is in need of reform – it has imperfections but it is the only authority in existence that can authorise war. To ignore the UN is to play the game of Saddam Hussein who has no time for due process and the rule of law.

The European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy is in disarray and EU applicant states have taken sides on the Iraqi question. Relations between the US and some EU states are at an all-time low. NATO is divided and the United Nations itself is in danger of being sidelined and going the way of the League of Nations.

The League of Nations came into existence on 10 January 1920. With headquarters in Geneva, it was established to settle international disputes and prevent war from breaking out again. However, the authority of the League of Nations was challenged on a number of occasions. In 1931, the Japanese invaded Manchuria, a part of China, which was a fellow member of the League of Nations, but the league was powerless to act.

In 1935, Italy invaded Abyssinia and the league, which was strongly influenced by British and French interests, applied only limited economic sanctions which did not include an embargo on oil supplies to Italy, on which Mussolini's military power relied. The league was the creation of US President Woodrow Wilson, but the US Congress would not sanction American participation.

There are parallels with the current situation. Although the US is a full member of the UN, and probably the most influential member of the Security Council, it and other permanent Security Council members like to retain for themselves the right to act unilaterally or bilaterally as their interests and judgments require. In other words, they are still not fully wed to its objectives.

The aims of the League of Nations included dealing with international disputes, preventing war, protecting the independence of countries and safeguarding their borders, and encouraging the reduction of armaments. These objectives are akin to those of the United Nations. The league failed because major powers could not be compelled to set aside military action in pursuit of their own interests. By the time the interests of the great powers were threatened, however, it was too late. Hitler had invaded the Rhine land, annexed Austria, invaded the Sudeten land and later the whole of Czechoslovakia. Only when it came to Poland, did Britain at last act. France was quickly overpowered.

The League of Nations never met after December 1939 and was dissolved in 1946. It failed in almost all its objectives. The UN was its successor and is meant to ensure there will be no repeat of such institutional impotence. Respect for the role of institutions such as the United Nations is central to a world at peace.

Dr. Hans Blix is due to report again, in a matter of days, to the United Nations. He made it clear that a conditional road map under Resolution 1284 of the UN could be put in place and is an ideal worth pursuing. He has indicated that he would publish such a road map. This would require Iraq to meet by a given deadline specific targets. If these were not met the United Nations could hardly have ignored his findings. Resolution 1441 was adopted unanimously by all 15 members of the UN Security Council last September. It shows that the UN can and does act.

The risk now being taken by the American and British Governments, aided by Spain, Australia and others, may well bring military success. The real problem, however, is that they have not acted with the authority of the UN Security Council. Next time out it might be China, Russia or some other state which decides to take risks to pursue its own objectives for which it will no doubt feel well justified. What will happen to international security then?

Fine Gael has set out its policy on this matter both inside and outside the House. I did not attend the anti-war rally in Dublin because as I made clear at the time, if the UN duly sanctioned war on Iraq, I might have had to stand up in the House and support it. We cannot be against war in every circumstance. If we oppose both UN-sanctioned war and bilateral or unilateral action, why should the US, UK or anybody else submit themselves to UN authority?

Those Members of the House who told the crowd they would do both are in the same camp as those who ignore UN decisions for their own interests and to pursue their own agenda. I am not in that camp. For years we have been told by certain Members of this House that any action to be supported must have UN sanction. When the UN passed Resolution 1441 and looked like it might pass a further resolution, they changed direction. They wanted a reformed UN – anything to please the crowd. Their position is untenable. The Dáil, the Government, the courts, the UN and the EU have imperfections, but the rule of law requires that we respect these imperfect institutions if chaos, mayhem, genocide and wholesale slaughter are not again to become the norm rather.

Fine Gael will not support the action against Iraq in these circumstances. Whatever the potential gain, the sacrifice of the rule of law is too great a price.

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern)

I wish to share my time with Deputies Collins, Killeen and Ardagh.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Ahern

Like my Government and party colleagues, I am clear about the fact that the present war in Iraq is, like all wars, a tragedy. The depth of agony that may be unleashed because of the conflict is beyond our conception, but Ireland has no role in such a conflict. Let us be crystal clear, this war is to be deeply regretted. Let us be clear also that because of the failure of the Security Council to find agreement, the absence of international agreement and our proud, historical and political tradition of military neutrality, Ireland will not participate in this conflict. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the other members of the Cabinet are clear and united on this issue.

Can there be a sensible person in this country who does not regret the failure of efforts within the UN Security Council to reach agreement on this issue? Can there be a sensible person in this country who does not condemn the continued refusal of the Government of Iraq for more than 12 years to comply with resolution after resolution to disarm? Can there be a sensible person who does not regret the recourse to war in the absence of a further resolution on this issue, despite the coalition's claims to be acting on the basis of an existing resolution? Is there anyone who does not regret the failure of the UN to agree on a resolution which could have forced Saddam Hussein to comply with the demands of the international community? Our position is clear and consistent – we oppose war and we regret the failure of politics and diplomacy.

We will continue, as we have done for the past 40 years, to allow the United States to make overflights. We will continue to make landing facilities available to them. This period covered conflicts and military confrontations, and it covered periods where the US was involved in military actions without a specific UN mandate.

We did not withdraw overflight or landing facilities before and we cannot withdraw them now. None of the other countries which oppose this war has contemplated withdrawal of existing facilities from the United States. Clearly, it would be extraordinary – it would be perceived as belligerent – for Ireland now to adopt such a position in regard to the United States, which not even the strongest critics of war are prepared to take.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Belligerent. Will the Minister answer a question?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not appropriate until the Minister comes to the end of his contribution.

Mr. D. Ahern

Being in opposition is a great luxury. There is the luxury of making up policy day by day without consideration for consistency, reality or real-life effect. During the first Gulf War, the Labour Party voted against a Dáil motion in support of UN resolutions on that conflict.

Ms Burton

They traded with Saddam.

Mr. D. Ahern

That position was backed by The Workers Party and by Deputy Rabbitte. The very same Labour Party vigorously backed military involvement in Kosovo, despite the absence of a resolution. Yet, today, with straight faces they assume the role of stern advocates of UN resolutions as the sole justification for war. We, on this side of the House, do not have that luxury. We are here to govern and that means taking hard, complex and difficult decisions, and this is one of those decisions.

Ms Burton

They traded with Saddam. That is what the Government did.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let the Minister continue without interruption, please.

Mr. D. Ahern

We have to take into account the existing 40-year arrangement with the United States regarding overflights. We also have to take into account the extent to which American foreign policy has benefited this country. Peace in the North of Ireland is very much the result of hands-on American involvement in the peace process. In the absence of an honest broker, an external and rational influence, most of us will agree that the peace we enjoy today would not have been attained. We owe that to the United States of America.

While Opposition Deputies may not feel any depth of gratitude, I invite them to visit my county of Louth, Monaghan, Armagh and Fermanagh where the peace dividend has delivered.

Mr. Coveney

That is disingenuous.

Mr. D. Ahern

It exists in the form of young people who today do not have to emigrate and, in many ways, that is thanks to the United States of America.

A number of years ago, I attended an interparliamentary union conference in Latin America. During that conference I was handed an album containing photograph after photograph depicting what Saddam Hussein did to his own people. Some 5,000 people were murdered in one afternoon. I do not condone what the United States and the coalition are doing today but I understand it in view of what Saddam Hussein has done to his people. I fully understand the desire of all nations to ensure that somebody like Saddam Hussein does not continue to do that to his own people.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

What is the difference between neutral Ireland's position and the other neutral countries in the European Union which are not allowed—

Mr. D. Ahern

We are fully entitled to make decisions in our own right and as an independent state. We have always had these long-standing arrangements with the United States of America whereas those countries have not.

Mr. Collins

I fully and unequivocally support the motion tabled by the Government which is a realistic response to unfolding developments. The motion tabled by the Government explains fully the background to the present political situation. It reaffirms the commitment of the Government to the United Nations as the guarantor of collective global security and as the appropriate forum for the resolution of disputes threatening international peace and security. It condemns the Iraqi Government for failing to comply with a wide-ranging set of UN resolutions over the past 12 years concerning the need to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction. The motion regrets that efforts within the UN Security Council to reach agreement on how to address the question of Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions have failed. It endorses the decision of the Government that Ireland will not participate in the coalition's proposed military action. Equally, the Government is fully committed to contributing to the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and the United Nations must assume a central role in securing all the humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq.

The final paragraphs of the Government's motion are those of most interest to Members. These state that we must recall the long-standing arrangements for the over-flight and landing in Ireland of US military and civilian aircraft and that we support the decision of the Government to maintain those arrangements.

I fully support the right of the US Government to land their aircraft at Shannon Airport. For many decades, military aircraft of various nationalities have been refuelling at Shannon Airport or, as aircraft ranges have extended, have even been over-flying Ireland on their way to and from North America. This has been the practice dating back over 40 years. The Taoiseach was right when he said that to do away with landing rights at this time when it has been standard practice for years would amount to a hostile act against the United States of America. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, stated in the House recently, the practice of facilitating the over-flight and landing of US aircraft and personnel dates back to a time when few people in this House were even born. This practice continued during the Cold War and all the wars and conflicts of the past 50 years. It has been maintained by successive Governments comprising many different political parties. To contend that the Government is doing something other than what is normal practice is simply political opportunism.

The legislative basis for the control of military over-flights and landings dates back to the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952 which prohibits foreign military aircraft from flying over or landing in the State except by the express invitation or permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In fact, specific over-flight arrangements have been in place for the US Government since 1959.

As a public representative for the mid-west region, I must represent the needs and interests of the people of my constituency. Ireland is an open economy and our employment policies over the past 30 years have been geared towards securing direct foreign investment from America into our country at every opportunity. Jobs in the country depend on the goodwill and support of American companies and, as a direct consequence of this, on the American Government. Due to the location of Shannon Airport and some extremely successful education colleges, the mid-west region has secured a high level of inward investment from America. These are undeniable facts.

Ireland's economic success in recent years is due in no small way to the high levels of American investment which have flowed into our country. These facts do not make us a military ally of the United States nor do they require us to uncritically support US foreign policy. They are, however, factors which no responsible Government conscious of the interests of the people would ignore. The fact that these connections have developed should come as no surprise to anyone. We are bound to America by close ties of history and blood. Irish men and women found prosperity and a future in the United States when Ireland could offer them nothing.

Mr. Killeen

Like the Taoiseach and speakers on all sides of the House, I greatly regret that war has become a reality. I particularly regret that the United Nations has failed to enforce its many directives against Saddam Hussein or to agree a further Security Council resolution. Resolution 1441 has neither been implemented nor rescinded. Some 12 years of sanctions have not resolved the crisis but, mainly because of Saddam Hussein's treachery towards his own people, have caused death and misery among the Iraqi people. Many of those who called for sanctions as an alternative to war 12 years ago very quickly changed their minds. Meanwhile, the opportunity was taken by Saddam Hussein to increase his complement of weapons of all kinds.

We also need to realise that 11 September brought about a sea change in the attitude and views of ordinary US citizens. I find it difficult to blame them for including the current Iraqi regime in the roll call of international terrorism. It is incumbent on us to recognise the context in which this war is being conducted. While we greatly regret that it has commenced in these circumstances, we need to look as objectively as we can at the reality behind what is happening. We all hope the war will be as brief as possible with the minimum number of casualties on all sides. If, as some Members of the House wish, we were to withdraw the facilities at Shannon, we would not be working to that end nor would that be an appropriate response to those who have been our allies in very difficult times.

As many speakers have said, the Americans were allowed to use these facilities during the war in Kosovo, the Vietnam War and on other occasions. Unfortunately, Kosovo serves to illustrate the difficulties and the weakness which have beset the United Nations for at least two decades. Bad and all though the United Nation's failure to address the situation in Kosovo was, worse still was the abject failure to address the situation in Rwanda.

It is the primary job of Government to protect the national interest in its many facets. Every worker at Shannon Airport and in US industries the length and breadth of the country understands perfectly well the role US goodwill plays in the siting of industries, the travel plans of tourists and in strategic decisions which are pertinent at the moment and which allow even large multinationals to make the decision to ride out the bad days and keep their facilities open and jobs available until there is an economic upturn. Just as there are many alternatives for transporting troops – only about 10% of US troops went through Shannon – there are a great many alternative destinations and locations for US factories. Political parties and Deputies must understand that any decision to undermine the US at Shannon will have negative effects on jobs at the airport and in industry.

We should now look forward to the situation that will arise when the war is over which I hope will happen sooner rather than later. There is a huge challenge for the United Nations. Heretofore, it has failed on every count with regard to Saddam Hussein. While the outcome is uncertain, there will be a challenge to establish a political entity to replace the dangerous vacuum that may arise. Thanks to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ireland played its role as a member of the Security Council with great skill and dexterity, as testified by the tabling of Resolution 1441. In the months ahead we need to act in a similar manner. We must also use our membership of the European Union to advance the humanitarian and other initiatives that will be required.

Mr. Ardagh

Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed by the United Nations Security Council. It called for the immediate and verifiable destruction by Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Ireland was a member of the Security Council at the time and played a significant role in getting agreement on the resolution, which arose indirectly as a result of the events of 11 September 2001.

It was agreed by all nations on the Security Council that Saddam Hussein should destroy all the weapons of mass destruction at his disposal or face serious consequences. It was only as a result of the military build-up in the Gulf by the United States and the United Kingdom that he started to co-operate in a drip-feed manner. No one was against the build-up of troops in the area and any improvement in Saddam's co-operation was only as a result of further military build-up. Saddam was testing the resolve of the Security Council by complying with Resolution 1441 in the most minimal manner possible.

I am sure it was the intention of the Security Council that a far more proactive response would be forthcoming. Every country knew that only the military pressure in the Gulf was getting Saddam to move at all, yet, for whatever reason, not all the countries on the Security Council were prepared to back up their words and their unanimous vote with a military presence in the Gulf. It was left to the US and the UK.

Saddam had every opportunity to co-operate fully, but he did not. He knew that the US and UK armies could not withstand the heat of the summer in the Gulf. He thought that if he could drip-feed enough to satisfy people somewhat, he would get through until the early summer when these armies would have to withdraw. At that point, as the imperative to act would have dissipated, he could again turn up his nose at the United Nations, as he has done for the past 12 years. The US and the UK armies would be home after a fruitless exercise. As Tony Blair said in Westminster earlier this week, who then would celebrate and who would weep?

The alternative for the US and the UK was to act now or pull out and back down. Where would that leave the Kurds in Northern Iraq and the countries surrounding Iraq which have suffered the might and force of Saddam in the past? It could be argued that it would be irresponsible for the US and the UK not to act now.

There is an alternative for Saddam which involves him leaving the country. The Iraqi army commanders could also overthrow him. Either course of action would be acceptable to the world but, unfortunately, neither is likely to happen.

The US and the UK are our best friends, politically and economically. Tony Blair has done all in his power to try to assist in resolving the problems in the North and has been tremendously successful in his efforts. Without his determination and dedication to the Northern Ireland problem we would not have had the Good Friday Agreement, nor the relative peace of the past number of years.

The US has been a good friend of Ireland for many years and we are only too aware of the economic and political benefits we have derived from that friendship. The question is whether we stick by our friends in their time of need. Do we continue to allow Shannon Airport to be used by the US for refuelling and do we allow over-flights? What do we take into account when we ask these questions? Do we accept as a truism that war is wrong and answer "no"? Do we believe that this is a just war and answer "yes"? Do we say that because of economic reasons and because of the number of people of Irish descent in the US, the UK and Australia, which is also participating in this war, we should vote in favour of the motion? Do we say we should vote yes because of our long-term interests or that due to the likely deaths of innocent women and children, we should vote no? Do we say the turmoil in the United Nations should affect our position?

Ultimately we, the Members of Dáil Éireann, must answer these questions and be responsible for our decisions. That decision should be yes and I will support the motion.

Mr. O'Dowd

I wish to share time with Deputy Coveney.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Dowd

The Irish have a proud record in international relations. Since 1960, the Army has served with great distinction in trouble spots around the world, including the Lebanon, Israel, The Congo, Cyprus, Eritrea, Kosovo Sarajevo and East Timor. In all, 84 soldiers have died on overseas duty, on United Nations mandated activities, and we have a proud and independent tradition in this regard which is respected throughout the world, be it Christian or Muslim. We have always accepted a United Nations mandate to serve and we have done so well. The Army has also attained international acceptability in terms of its peacekeeping role throughout the world. The United Nations school in the Curragh, County Kildare, is attended by soldiers from all over the world, from as far away as China or America, who wish to learn more about peacekeeping.

The Fine Gael position on this issue is clear and is based on support for the primacy and legitimacy of the United Nations. Our position is not anti-American. Many voices in the United States, the United Kingdom and throughout the world are deeply concerned about this war proceeding without United Nations sanction. In 1991, the war in Iraq was backed by Security Council resolution and Fine Gael supported the provision of facilities at Shannon Airport to United States forces on their way to the Gulf.

Resolution 1441 provides for a clear process, whereby the Security Council would access inspectors reports, decide whether material breach of Iraq's obligations had occurred and what ensuing action was appropriate. It is clear, and the Government accepts, that a second resolution was necessary to sanction military action. The failure to achieve a second resolution and the commencement of military action without a United Nations mandate creates a real danger to the future role of the United Nations. The long-term interests of independent, non-aligned states, such as Ireland, are best served by an effective UN. To support the provision of facilities to a military force engaged in action not sanctioned by the UN would be a betrayal of our commitment and support for an effective international organisation which can ensure justice and order in international affairs. If member states act in their own interest, it cannot be long before the UN goes the way of the League of Nations. Who will then secure international peace?

Fine Gael is also clear about Saddam Hussein and his regime. He has murdered million of his citizens and has the most evil and unacceptable legacy which, in modern times, is the equal of Hitler's. It is totally unacceptable that he should continue to manufacture, or to have stored in any place in his country, weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations appointed inspectors to search all parts of Iraq to ascertain where these weapons might be stored or to make every possible attempt to find them. If we believe in the UN, we must accept progress was made, as outlined by Mr. Blix. Neither he nor anybody else was happy with that progress but significant changes had occurred. He sought more time – months, not years or days – and resources to do his work properly. Fine Gael believes this war is precipitate because the clock was still running on the role of inspector Blix and his staff. This war is taking place without proper investigation of all the locations in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction may be present. The investigation was about finding and destroying these weapons.

The action of America and the UK was precipitate in this regard and it does not have the support of the UN. Many countries are deeply unhappy about it. On the other hand, Fine Gael acknowledges the key role played by the British and US governments in achieving peace in Ireland. It was a role we requested them to play and Ireland has not been short of a listening ear in London or in Washington in recent years under different US Presidents.

The New York Times published a photograph in 1991 of a US soldier going to war carrying a tricolour. He was an Irish-American who was proud of his history and he went to war under the UN flag. We were happy to facilitate those soldiers when they landed in Ireland. The same soldier may be going to war again today but this time there is a significant difference. While these soldiers are our kith and kin, this war is not justified given the information that is available and, therefore, Fine Gael does not support the war. We understand the difficult decision the Government had to make but we disagree on this issue.

I refer to the important issue of young people engaging in the political process. Many young people are communicating with me because they are deeply concerned and worried about that is happening. If the war does nothing else, it will re-awaken the ideals of peace, equality, fairness and justice in the world under the UN flag. Young people in my home town are contacting public representatives because they feel strongly about this war. They had not engaged in the political process previously but they are involved now.

I listened to a debate on BBC Radio 4 about the collateral damage of the war in terms of the number of people who will die. One gentlemen stated the coalition would try to keep the number of deaths to less than 30,000 and that was acceptable. However, that is unacceptable given the information that is available. That would be similar to wiping out the population of Drogheda, my home town, in the next while. The people of Iraq are faced with an awful scenario.

I refer to a letter published in The New York Times today, which was written by Edward Murphy from Minneapolis. He said that seven years ago he held his dying son in his arms and he understands the pain involved. He pointed out that many thousands of Iraqi parents will do the same in the coming weeks. He concluded his letter by stating: “This war is a disgraceful failure of the powerful to resolve their differences. Whatever your politics, whoever your God, remember it is the innocent who die.”

Fine Gael supports every act to achieve peace and the proper disarmament of vile, evil dictators such as Saddam but only through proper, due process. We are proud of and unequivocal about that position in the circumstances.

Tá muidne ar an taobh seo den Teach go mór i bhfabhar na Náisiúin Aontaithe agus i bhfabhar deireadh a chur leis an réim atá ag Saddam le tamall an-fhada san Iaráic. Níl muid i bhfabhar an chogaidh ná an dóigh a thosaigh sé. Níl rún na Náisiúin Aontaithe ag cur leis an chogadh seo. Bhí sé de cheart ag Meirceá agus Sasan fanacht tamall eile, trí nó ceithre mhí, chun féachaint an dtig an t-ábhar a sháradh gan cogadh. Ní maith linn an cogadh mar níl aon ghá leis faoi láthair. Tá súil agam go gcríochnóidh an cogadh seo chomh luath agus is féidir.

Mr. Coveney

War on Saddam Hussein in Iraq has begun. This debate is necessary but it is taking place in response to circumstances that all Members had hoped could be avoided. As military action proceeds with American, British and Australian armed forces invading Iraq with the support of Spain and other countries, the international community is divided, Europe and the EU is bitterly split, the credibility of the UN and the Security Council has been massively damaged and the tragic consequences of modern warfare will soon unfold in Iraq.

The purpose of the debate is to establish Ireland's response and position regarding the crisis in Iraq. It is a decision for the Dáil to take and not the Government alone, as provided for in the Constitution. On an issue of this magnitude, considering war and its consequences, seen and described in detail through modern media as it happens, it is difficult not to allow emotions blur our clarity of thought. We are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of the people in this instance, consistent with our Constitution, our moral duty and international obligations.

I will outline a number of basic facts, which form the basis of the Fine Gael argument. Ireland is an independent, sovereign, non-militarily aligned, neutral country. We continue to attach the utmost importance to the legitimacy of the UN and the role of the UN Security Council, in particular, in determining solutions to international conflict and instability. Saddam Hussein is a savage and ruthless dictator, with a history of aggression, who has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, many in his own country, with a blatant disregard for international law and consecutive UN resolutions following the Gulf War.

The UN Security Council reached agreement in November 2002 on Resolution 1441. I commend the Government on the role it played in achieving the resolution, which outlined a determination to disarm the Iraqi regime and put in place a system of intensive weapons inspections to establish the existence of weapons of mass destruction and to monitor active disarmament. Non-compliance with the resolution would result in consequences but a decision was to be taken by the UN Security Council on these consequences at a future date.

Given the pressure of a build-up of troops and looming war, the weapons inspectors, under the guidance of Dr. Hans Blix, achieved successful results and co-operation, with access to all sites, interviews with Iraqi scientists and the dismantling of limited numbers of Al-Samoud missiles. No evidence of weapons of mass destruction have been located by the inspectors to date. The decision to abandon diplomatic efforts and go to war to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein has been taken by a coalition of countries without the backing of the majority of UN Security Council members. Britain and the US, the two nations leading the war effort, are Ireland's neighbours and friends with strong social, political, economic and family links and they have requested our support.

Finally, now that war has begun, the case that has been argued for averting or delaying war, for giving the inspectors more time and for attempting to create consensus on a way forward in the UN Security Council to avoid war becomes largely irrelevant.

Where do we go from here? Fine Gael has maintained a consistent position in the build-up to this conflict, as we have for decades in relation to the role of the UN in the international decision-making process. It was pointed out earlier by Fine Gael speakers that we supported the Gulf War at the time, which had UN sanction. The position in regard to Iraq has always been one which indicates support for action mandated by UN resolution and, by way of corollary, there has always been opposition to any pre-emptive action in the absence of such a resolution or Security Council support.

Ireland has an international responsibility to protect the role and legitimacy of the UN as the primary body and structure to enforce world order, otherwise the law of the jungle applies where might is right. Military action by the US and Britain at this time gravely undermines the primacy of the UN. For that reason I would be a hypocrite if I supported Irish involvement in aiding this war effort through refuelling in Shannon Airport or any other form of assistance. We supported the use of Shannon for the build-up of troops in the Gulf, which achieved success through the weapons inspection process, because that had UN sanction and support.

I will be quite clear: I agreed with the Taoiseach when he said this is not a black and white issue. By not supporting the war Fine Gael is neither anti-American nor anti-British. We are determined instead to support UN legitimacy. Britain and the US are Ireland's closest friends and neighbours on the international scene, with strong economic, social, emotional and family links. Those links will continue; many members of my family are British or live in Britain.

We have much to thank the US for, in its involvement with the Northern Ireland peace process, in economic terms as a destination for Irish emigrants and as an investor in building the modern Irish economy of which we are so proud. We have much to thank the British Government for as a result of the priority it has given to finding resolutions in Northern Ireland. Even on the brink of war with Iraq, the British Prime Minister found time to make the peace process in the North a priority.

Also, many of the troops going to war consider themselves Irish, whether they are in Irish regiments in the British Army or members of the American forces. Opposing this war, which involves our closest neighbours, is not an easy stance for the Government to take. It is a real test of our resolve to insist on the UN as the only legitimate body with the power to sanction war for the greater good. We must adhere to that principle even if our closest friends wage war on Saddam Hussein, who is an enemy of humanity, democracy and common decency. Fine Gael believes that allowing Shannon Airport to be used as a stop-over point and refuelling destination means we are indirectly supporting the war effort and, therefore, we oppose this policy. We have put forward a clear, detailed and structured amendment to the motion.

I wish to outline another of Ireland's responsibilities as the war proceeds. Ireland has real credibility in speaking out on humanitarian aid issues and we must play a role through the UN in highlighting the massive humanitarian problems which will unfold in the coming weeks and months. The cost of reconstructing Afghanistan over a ten year period is estimated at approximately $15 billion; the cost of reconstructing Iraq may cost five to ten times more. It is estimated that up to one million people will soon be on the move in Iraq trying to find refuge from war.

Ireland has two responsibilities in the area of humanitarian aid. Aeroplanes should be allowed to land in Shannon if they are carrying humanitarian aid even if they are American military aircraft, as in reality the American military will carry much of that aid. Second, we must not divert money from other aid programmes for Africa and elsewhere into Iraq. New funds will have to be found for Iraq as those suffering in Africa and elsewhere should not suffer more as a result of the aid we must give to Iraq. We must also use our influence in the UN to encourage a UN response to those humanitarian aid issues. There will have to be a common effort to re-consolidate the UN in rebuilding Iraq as a nation.

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin)

I propose to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy de Valera, Deputies Peter Power and Conor Lenihan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Martin

The motion does not seek support for Ireland's participation in any war and that fundamental point must be reiterated. The motion regrets the fact that the coalition of forces from the US and the UK have launched such a campaign. The leader of the Labour Party seemed to suggest this represented a fundamental departure in Irish foreign policy and we refute that contention strongly; the motion does not represent a major departure in Irish foreign policy in any shape or form.

During the Second World War our position on the enunciation and practical policy of neutrality was clearly a neutrality on the side of the Allied powers; practical assistance was given to the Allies during that period, which is clear from any reading of the historical analyses of the time. We have maintained non-participation in any military alliance but through the UN we have always sought consensus and held fast to the central role of the UN itself.

Successive Governments, irrespective of the parties in their make-up, have always supported UN missions by sending Irish troops to various areas of conflict across the globe in order to assist with peacekeeping measures. It is unworthy and unfair to suggest, as has been suggested in recent debates, that the Government is somehow not as committed to the UN project as previous Administrations. We remain committed to the UN and in the approach to Resolution 1441 we played our role on the Security Council, in particular through the efforts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs; I appreciate Deputy Coveney's points in that regard. We will continue to play our role in doing the best we can within our sphere of influence to maintain the UN as the essential force in the world for global security. That is an important principle which is reiterated in the motion and we recommit the Dáil and the country towards it.

On a previous occasion, during the Gulf War, UN Resolution 678 called on all states to provide appropriate support for military action, including over-flight facilities. The Labour Party and their then colleagues in the Workers' Party opposed this even though there was a specific UN resolution and voted against the Dáil motion supporting the UN resolution. To an extent it appears the Labour Party is using the UN issue as a badge of convenience for its current policy.

Mr. Sherlock

He was stating facts.

Acting Chairman

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. Martin

It held an opposing view during the 1991 Gulf War.

If one considers the previous experience of Kosovo, there was no Security Council resolution explicitly authorising the use of force. There were various resolutions which found that the situation in Kosovo constituted a threat to international peace and security. Some states argued there was implicit authorisation in these resolutions. It is clear the Dáil debates at the time took place on the assumption that there was no specific authorisation. Some of the discussions centred, like now, on the legality or otherwise of the military action taken by NATO on that occasion. Again the question of overflights and landings was raised and Ireland granted refuelling permission to US military aircraft bound for Italy during the period of the bombing in relation to Kosovo. People have had retrospective views on this, including the appropriateness or otherwise of the intervention in Kosovo. However, one gets the sense of a double think in terms of one issue as opposed to the other. That is because we are not living in an ideal world. We worked for unanimity and consensus on the Security Council, which did not materialise. There has been a significant failure at UN and Security Council level to achieve that unanimity and consensus for which we yearned, worked towards and played a constructive role in attempting to achieve. There has also been a significant failure at European level. The Fine Gael party would be an advocate for the ending of our policy on neutrality. It published a policy document stating that we should be part of a European military alliance.

Mr. Coveney

That is not true.

Mr. Martin

Deputy Mitchell has already published policy documents, particularly beyond neutrality, which advocate both the creation of a European defence entity and Ireland's participation in it. That is a legitimate position for a party.

Mr. Coveney

A European defence policy, not entity.

Mr. Martin

It is a policy that Fine Gael would participate in a European defence, which is fair enough. Deputy Mitchell has been consistent down through the years in advocating that as a policy. We would have our differences in terms of emphasis and so on but that has been the Fine Gael position. The illustration to date, in particular, the conduct of diplomacy prior to the beginning of war, represents a failure in terms of European politics and the ability of the European Union and the heads of state throughout Europe to develop a common position. If one looks back over the past decade, Europe has always had this difficulty despite the advance of the European Union on the economic and social front. When it comes to major areas of conflict, there has always been a fundamental failure to achieve that consensus and unanimity. I was reminded of this during Deputy Rabbitte's contribution which created the perception that we are turning our back on the EU. He cited the major contributions of the European Union in regard to structural funds and supports, which we acknowledge and are part of. However, we are not turning our backs on the European Union. We work with our colleagues at European Union level to achieve the necessary international consensus required.

I hope this conflict, which will have terrible consequences, will be as short as possible in the interests of the ordinary people of Iraq. We want to play a constructive role in the humanitarian aid effort under the aegis of the UN and in the proper reconstruction of Iraq. It is important, however, to bear in mind the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein, which has sometimes become lost in the debate in Ireland in regard to the merits or demerits of the action taken.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Miss de Valera)

It was Benjamin Franklin who said, "There never was a good war nor a bad peace". So a world that has again failed to learn enters yet another war. We now face a war that has come about because of a spectacular failure in diplomacy. The nations of the free world have their own agendas. They failed to unite and agree on how evil should be defeated and the real losers in this war, as in any war, will be the innocent men, women and children of Iraq who will die needlessly.

My admiration for the United States of America is well known. However, there have been times when I could not agree with aspects of its foreign policy and regrettably this is one of these times. In expressing my concerns about war I would hate to think that some comfort and solace has been taken by President Saddam Hussein from what has been said in this debate, as in debates in other parliaments in the free world. This is a man who has terrorised his neighbouring countries and gassed his own people. He presides over a country where one in four of his people are in exile and he has defied 17 UN resolutions. If everyone agrees this man's reign of terror should be brought to an end, why has some nation not put forward a credible alternative to this appalling war which the Iraqi people now face?

If the free world had stood together and worked a little harder for a little longer, perhaps a solution could have been found that would have saved the people of Iraq from war and saved the lives of men and women of the armed forces who are serving their countries loyally. The nature of war tends to be "a plague on all your houses". What we now have is the United Nations in disarray, shown to be worryingly irrelevant and a European Union badly divided. The UN is the organisation in which we have entrusted our hopes for a peaceful and harmonious world. Push those hopes aside and we stare into an abyss. In the case of the European Union, the developments of recent weeks demonstrate clearly to those who aspire to a federalist United States of Europe how far-fetched that pipe dream is. It gives no comfort to see a Europe so divided. Those of us who have expressed reservations in the past about the direction of the European Union can only be concerned at the seemingly unbridgeable divisions over a matter of such political and humanitarian importance.

Many people have expressed concern that Ireland is involved in this war because of its decision to allow refuelling of American military aircraft at Shannon Airport. I remind people that Shannon is not just some type of strategic base for American military, it is a commercial airport and a business. In the past it has taken business from the old Soviet Union and from former eastern bloc countries, as it has from the Americans. This is the nature of a commercial airport. For example, Germany, which is so utterly opposed to the US in relation to Iraq, had no problem allowing US planes carrying military personnel to refuel there when there were fears the planes might be attacked at Shannon. If we made a decision to ban American military aircraft refuelling at Shannon we would turn our backs on a precedent of almost 50 years. In turning our backs on that precedent we would turn our backs on neutrality. It seems to be very convenient for the Opposition to have forgotten the legal advice referred to by the Taoiseach in the debate this morning when he summarised the advice given by the Attorney General to the Government that the granting to the US and its allies of overflight permissions and the provision of landing facilities at Shannon do not constitute participation in a war within the meaning of Articles 28.3 of the Constitution.

As a representative for County Clare, I realise the significance, value and importance of the ties between the Shannon region and the United States. These ties are not just important in historic terms but fundamental the present day economic reality. These ties have played a significant role in our peace process and it is imperative it continues. Everyone here today regrets that part of the world is at war. I bitterly regret the failure of diplomacy. While concerns have been expressed about the use of Shannon Airport, it is important to reiterate it represents no breach of our neutrality. No war is a good war. I am sure everyone in the House joins me in hoping the war is conducted as expeditiously and with as minimal a loss of life as possible. We can now only hope and pray for the earliest possible establishment of justice and peace in Iraq.

Mr. P. Power

The debate today is to reflect on and debate the Government's stated policy on the unfolding crisis in Iraq. We need to reflect for a moment on how the international community got itself into this terrible situation. It is a situation which will have a profoundly negative effect on the conduct of foreign and international relations for more than a generation to come.

The entire authority of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security is now at risk. In fact, it may already have been fundamentally undermined. Neither has the European Union covered itself in glory, despite the great efforts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, which have been applauded throughout the entire European Union. In this context, we must remember that a few short months ago the international community, with absolute unanimity, decided that Saddam Hussein and Iraq pose a credible threat to international security.

It is greatly disturbing and regrettable that the United Nations failed to achieve a consensus on the nature, timing and implementation of Resolution 1441. More regrettable still the international community, unwittingly or otherwise, has played directly into the hands of Saddam Hussein. He has thrived on international disunity and that is something which should not be forgotten. It is a cause of profound disappointment and will have long-term effects on the international world order.

Before discussing Ireland's place in this new international order, there are two important points to be made. First, it is beyond argument that this country, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have played a laudable role and done everything in their power of procurement to avoid military conflict. This conflict is not of our making or choosing but we can be proud of our efforts at the UN and the European Union to avoid that conflict. Second, it is entirely justified in the context of Resolution 1441 that we provided facilities at Shannon Airport. I believe it was right and proper and that it served our national interests but it was also on the basis of our legal obligation under Article 25 of the UN Charter. Our actions on the use of Shannon were credible and consistent. They are in line with our international obligations and should be continued.

The new situation presents the international community and this country with profound dilemmas in terms of our international relations. It provides us with political and ethical dilemmas. We are not alone in that regard; every country in the world is attempting to grapple with this huge moral and ethical problem. In exercising our judgment and our conscience it should be remembered that there are no absolutes whatsoever in this debate. The Members on the other side of the House are not absolutely right and I do not say that we are absolutely right either but neither is anyone absolutely wrong and we must recognise that reality. Unfortunately we are forced to accept that the new international consensus which we worked hard to achieve has now broken down. In these circumstances it is my firm belief that each country must now formulate new policies based on its own strategic concerns and interests.

Last week I listened with considerable interest to the former Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael and former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who said with great coherence that it is entirely legitimate for this country to formulate its foreign policy in the new situation based on its national interests. Practically every country in the world has adopted a uniquely different position in the chaos of international community relations which now confronts us and Ireland is no different.

We are fully entitled to make our decisions based upon proper and appropriate considerations and these considerations have been debated at length today. Our relationships within the international community should inform our thinking in this matter. It is entirely legitimate to take into account our relationship with both the current antagonists, namely Iraq and the United States.

It is most important to realise that our relationship with Britain, which has been a long and troubled one, has in recent years entered a new and enlightened phase of friendship and co-operation which has been of benefit to both countries. Are we now to simply cast off that new special relationship? I think not. It would be politically naive and irresponsible of the Government to do so. There are moral and ethical considerations in this debate.

Acting Chairman

There are just over two minutes left in this speaking slot.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Some 140 Labour Party Members of the House of Commons voted against their Government. How many Fianna Fáil Members will vote against the Government?

Mr. P. Power

Who holds the greater moral authority in this debate? The United States whose morals we share—

Mr. Gormley

I hope we do not share them.

Mr. P. Power

—or the butcher of Baghdad, the sadist, the rapist, the torturer, the gas man, the killer? I suggest that nobody has a monopoly on moral authority, even on the other side of the House.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I listened carefully to the Taoiseach and I congratulate him on his candid approach. The situation is not black and white but rather grey and the Taoiseach acknowledged that fact. It is a grey situation and we are in uncharted waters. I listened carefully to Deputy Rabbitte's contribution. He said that it was not about liberation or regime change or disarmament but I do not agree with him; that is precisely what this unilateral strike is about. The tragedy is that there is not an Irish involvement in this operation. It is a tragedy that the UN has been brought to the lowest level in its history. It cannot agree to be part of this operation. We should not isolate ourselves and think it is wonderful that we live in a neutralised world of our own creation. We cannot stand back and we cannot be neutral in the face of the naked aggression deployed by Saddam Hussein against his own people and against the international order.

Mr. Gormley

The Government did stand back in Hallabjah.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I do not agree with much of what Deputy Rabbitte said but at least it had the benefit of being logical in its approach. I found Deputy Kenny's statement remarkable when he said that we should not use Shannon Airport because we might become a target for an international terrorist attack. That is the political and moral equivalent of cowering in the corner while the aggressor bullies everybody in the playground. I will not say what sort of foreign policy that is.

Acting Chairman

Your time has expired, Deputy Lenihan.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I hope that this House does not go down that particular sad road of morality where neutrality becomes the reverse of what it was intended to be, a kind of perverse world where people cower in the corner and refuse to take a position. In fairness to Deputy Rabbitte he was not advocating that; he may have been advocating something else but I am not sure.

I find it deeply ironic that Fine Gael is now supporting the closure of Shannon.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Lenihan, your time has expired.

Mr. C. Lenihan

There is not one mention in the Fine Gael motion of closing down Shannon.

Mr. Stagg

Chairman, please.

Acting Chairman

Your time has expired, Deputy Lenihan.

Mr. C. Lenihan

It was pulled because one of their TDs in Clare was not going to support the motion if it referred explicitly to the closure of Shannon. That is the reality of what Fine Gael thinks of foreign policy in this country.

Ms Lynch

The Deputy should stop making eyes at the press.

Mr. M. Higgins

I take it I have 20 minutes, Chairman. I welcome this opportunity of finally debating the situation in Iraq in wider terms than simply responses to meetings such as the European Council meeting or meetings of the Security Council. I want to use the time I have available to deal factually with matters that I believe have been made unnecessarily complex in the course of this debate.

In relation to legality, this House and the Irish public are entitled to a straightforward answer to a very direct question. Where do they stand in relation to the principle of pre-emptive action? Kofi Annan is very clear on this issue and he is often quoted by the Government. His opinion is straightforward – pre-emptive action is outside of the United Nations' Charter and is illegal. None of the Ministers and Deputies who have spoken so far have answered this question. When will the Irish Government state that pre-emptive action is outside the United Nations' Charter and is illegal? In relation to Resolution 1441 the Irish Government suggests that there is a legal ambiguity in the interpretation of the resolution. In fairness to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when Resolution 1441 was passed in November, he stated that it was " an alternative to war". He was speaking at the end of a complex process in which it had been admitted by many of the different participants as they worked on Resolution 1441 that it was almost impossible to achieve a unanimous decision.

In relation to the passing of a resolution, I wish to deal with fact. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. John Negroponte, stated at the UN that Resolution 1441 had no trigger for military action. Within one week afterwards, the British Foreign Secretary made a similar remark in the House of Commons and two days later, in a lengthy interview, the Deputy Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated, although he would have wished it otherwise, that Resolution 1441 did not have a trigger for action.

Let us be fair to Resolution 1441. In the limited time available, I can only deal with some matters of substance in it. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs is well aware, the operative paragraph 12 explicitly states that it is the Security Council that will take a decision in relation to evaluating compliance with Resolution 1441. Much has been said about the previous 16 or 17 resolutions passed in relation to Iraq. I am familiar with all of them. Nearly all of them open with a statement recognising the sovereignty of Iraq, thereby acknowledging the legal problem with regard to an invasion and go on to use an important formulation of words: "the Security Council will remain seized of the situation". The council occupied the field, stating that it alone would deal with the issue of evaluation, which was envisaged as involving a fourfold process, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction would be dealt with, inspectors would look at the process and report to the Security Council, a conclusion would be reached as to whether a material breach had occurred and, at that point, a decision would be taken on appropriate action.

When, in his speech, the Taoiseach stated: "I will limit myself to its defiance of the United Nations", he could have been referring to the United States and the United Kingdom. However, he spoke exclusively of Iraqi non-compliance with resolutions, demonstrating the one-sided nature of this speech, as was the case in so many others. With respect, I thought his speech could have been written at 10 Downing Street and that is a compliment because I might have said it could have been written at the Pentagon, which would be even worse. I refer to an extraordinary statement in the speech in relation to the terrorist threat:

The attacks of 11 September demonstrated that the world had entered into a new and dangerous era. The optimistic suggestion put forward in the aftermath of the Cold War that we had reached the end of history proved to be seriously premature.

If one wishes to deconstruct that statement, I suggest there was an outbreak of severe existentialism in the Fianna Fáil Party. In trying to make sense of it, I was encouraged to reflect on what it might mean. Having immersed himself in Fukayama, the Taoiseach might have wandered on to the writings of others who have indented and crafted the source of the new United States foreign policy. I believe the strike we are now witnessing in Iraq was envisaged very clearly from about 1997 onwards in statements made by some of those who now advise the US President – Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others. In the founding principles of their website, Project for a new American Century, on 3 June 1997, they wrote:

As the twentieth century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests? Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons . . . . 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 promote the cause of political economic freedom abroad. We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values. We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order favourable to our security, extending our prosperity and implementing our principles.

That is a clear signal from Dick Cheney, Elliot Cohen, Mitch Dexter, Paul Dobransky, Steve Forbes and, indeed, Francis Fukayama, the Taoiseach's intellectual and moral source, as well as Donald Kagan, Peter Rothman, Paul Wolfowitz and many others. Moving on from 1997 to April 2002, those sources made a clear link to the Palestinian-Israeli question. In this regard, the leading signatory was William Kristol, who stated:

Nobody should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you, Mr. President, have correctly called an axis of evil. Israel is targeted, in part, because it is our friend and, in part, because it is an island of liberal democratic principles – American principles – in a sea of tyranny, intolerance and hatred. As Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq and Syria are all engaged in "inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades." You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war.

I use this quotation, not to be anti-American but rather to be very strongly pro-American. That illustrates the distance between, on the one hand, the particular mindset created in 1997 by that small group of people now in the White House, which viewed the Middle East in a particular way and needed a war with Iraq and, on the other hand, people like former President Carter and Senator Bird, Dean of the United States Senate, who have spoken against the war and many millions of people in the US who oppose the war.

As a previous speaker mentioned, there is a context and a particular world view which has implications for United States foreign policy when we relate it to the long history of UN resolutions in relation to Iraq. When I listened earlier to the rhetorical reference by the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, notably her phrase "This is a man . . . " and so on, I was tempted to add . . . to whom former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey wrote: "We are looking forward to closer relations in culture, economics and politics" and added the compliment: "You are the leader of a country that is the cradle of civilisation." That was after Halabja. Let us deal with the facts and the tragedy of Halabja, directed against the Kurds who were caught in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, with chemical weapons being supplied to the Iranian side by western Governments and mustard gas being supplied to the Iraqi Government, also by western powers.

Time does not allow me to review all the older sources. Specifically on the legal issue with regard to Resolution 1441, there is a mechanism which could have determined whether legal capacity exists in Resolutions 678 and 687. It is as clear as day. The British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is on his own and our Attorney General is off the wall in terms of his opinion as conveyed in the Taoiseach's speech. That opinion was given in the context of Article 28.3 but he refused to combine the obligations of Article 29. One cannot decouple Article 28.3 from Article 29. When I say that Lord Goldsmith is on his own, I am referring to the 16 independent international lawyers – I stress independent – located at Oxford and Cambridge and owing loyalty to nobody, who, in The Guardian a few days ago, published an opinion that there was no legal basis for a strike in Resolutions 678 and 687. Automaticity has been rejected in every journal of international law. It has been rejected by, for example, the president of the American International Law Association. It is all there. The suggestion that there is confusion as to whether there is capacity in the previous resolutions to make a strike against Iraq is merely used as a cover – there is not. In that regard, it is appalling that the confusion sown has been used by the Government to refuse to answer my first fundamental question on where it stands with regard to the principle of pre-emption and unilateral action outside the UN Charter.

Mr. Cowen

We answered.

Mr. M. Higgins

Why did the Government not come to the House to explain why the goal-posts were systematically changed? Members should remember being told that the project was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, something with which we could all agree? The project suddenly became the admission of the inspectors, with which we all agreed. After that, however, a time scale was introduced.

Why, after 12 years, did a time scale become urgent? Why could Hans Blix not be given the extra time he sought? In that was sown the basis of the US project to deliberately defeat the actions and the intentions of the other permanent members of the Security Council. We, by our actions, are siding with those who have damaged the Security Council. The French position at the Security Council was against war "at this time", as the French Foreign Minister explicitly stated and as his ambassador put on the record at the United Nations Security Council. That too was distorted.

There was a suggestion that, because certain countries were not going to get the resolution they wanted, the veto had dislodged the six countries in the middle. The veto has been used 75 times in 30 years – some 50 times by the United States. It was used on 19 December 2002 against a mild resolution criticising Israel for its actions in the Occupied Territories and Palestine. That is the issue with regard to the veto.

One thing will remain the same with regard to the problem in 1991 and now. We will rely on courageous and independent journalists who have not embedded themselves in the military. We will still look at obscenities, such as Sky television reducing the death of people to a video game. We will hope that it will be a war that will not be covered. No more than we saw the 6,000 people who were ploughed into the desert with ploughs mounted on the front of tanks near Basra in 1991, we will not see the civilian casualties in this war either.

The war in the first six months will cost $56 billion. UNICEF has given the figure of $135 million for all the humanitarian relief needed for six months, and 35% of that is on offer. The military strike is against a people, half of whom are under the age of 15, in which there are one million malnourished children and 3.3 million people immediately affected, and where there is an expectation of 100,000 immediate casualties and 400,000 secondary ones. The humanitarian relief for those casualties and their relatives is 35% subscribed but the military strike on them, in an illegal action, is fully subscribed.

Bishop Kirby is correct that we are at a turning point in history, international relations and foreign policy. We are also at a moral moment for ourselves in regard to accepting violence in our lives. The violence includes that against the United States troops who will die, some 35% of whom are recruited from minorities and 20% of whom are black. The United States is reduced by fear to a life less than fully lived as people invent terrorist attacks. People have been traumatised since 1997 in a systematic creation that suits military expenditure, military action and acts of a violent kind, and works against the much more difficult and slower task of creating non-violent strategies for the resolution of conflict.

I have often stated and written about the humanitarian consequences of this. I have met people in Baghdad who are different from those of 1991. In 1991, 70,000 tons of explosives rained down on Iraq in 48 days. The sky went black when the refinery was burned. On this occasion, the people have been through 12 years of sanctions; they will not be leaving their houses. The Republican Guard will use them as human shields. They will be used by Saddam and abused by the person coming, allegedly, to liberate them.

This is an obscenity and it was avoidable. No reasonable person can suggest that, given more time, resources and co-operation, the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction could not have been achieved by the inspectors. Importantly, had that model of decommissioning of weapons of mass destruction been established in Iraq over a longer period, it would have been available for use in other countries. Instead, there is unilateral, pre-emptive action outside international law.

With regard to Shannon, there is a notion that one can give an opinion based on Article 28.3 of the Constitution while closing one's eye to Article 29. While we are not at war, we are facilitating it. The International Court of Justice, established in 1950, could have ruled on the fundamental issue of whether capacity exists for a strike in regard to Resolutions 678 and 687. It could also have ruled on other matters as that is what it is there for; it is a United Nations institution, mentioned in the charter, for inter-state resolution and for giving what the charter calls a learned opinion.

We did not seek to find out where the law lay. We simply drifted in the shadow of those who say: "Well, if it is going to happen, and the planes are going to be flying over somewhere else and landing somewhere else, forget that they are landing in NATO bases, we might as well make a bit out of it the same as anybody else." I find that shameful.

Bishop Kirby is right. The United States will spend $396.1 billion on defence expenditure in 2003. I realise that I am rejected by those who say that we do not live in an ideal world, that there is no point in creating utopias and that we must be practical. However, I am still free to imagine this: what if the most powerful country in the world, instead of spending $396.1 billion on armaments, was willing to spend a fraction of that on relieving world poverty?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs was at Monterrey when the Millennium Development Goals were established to reduce world poverty by half by 2015. This House should, considering the deflection of human resources and intellectual resources into an unnecessary and illegal act of war against one of the poorest nations in the world, take a stand and say: "We are sorry – no facilities will be available to those who act illegally and who purvey war against a country in these circumstances." There should be no excuse that we will urge or beseech people to observe the position of civilians or children. That is the law.

We have not heard so far what we will do practically to vindicate the Geneva Conventions. Sadly, I must say this: we are lessened at home and abroad by allowing ourselves to be complicit in an outrageous action.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. Walsh)

I wish to share my time with Deputies Hanafin, Haughey and O'Malley, by agreement.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Walsh

It is a sombre duty to address the House today on the outbreak of war in Iraq. In commending the motion to the House, I acknowledge that this has been a very difficult decision for everyone and I appreciate the strongly and sincerely held views of all Members. We all wish, of course, that events had not led to the serious position which confronts us today. The US and the UK, in standing up for what they consider to be right, face the task of removing Saddam Hussein and his heinous regime.

We should not forget that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who, over many years, has caused massive destruction in the Middle East and brought enormous suffering on his own people. We should not forget either that the US and the UK are democratic countries which, in taking decisions to commit their armed forces, realise that many of their own citizens will unfortunately pay the ultimate price. No matter what view Deputies take, I know that we all share heartfelt sadness at the prospect of the human cost in suffering and death which this conflict is about to inflict. Unfortunately, that is the harsh reality of a conflict like this.

This motion is a carefully measured response that takes into account Ireland's interests and our international responsibilities. In the current circumstances, the Government has decided that in the absence of a further Security Council resolution authorising the use of military force, Ireland will not participate in the US led military action. However, that is not to suggest that we are blind to the origins of the crisis. This crisis could have been averted at any time if Saddam Hussein and his regime had complied with the 17 resolutions of the UN over a period of 12 years.

Everybody would have wished that the conflict could have been resolved under the charter of the UN, particularly Ireland which, like all small countries, looks to the UN as a guarantor of peace and security. Ireland believes in a strong and effective United Nations. We want that situation to continue. Our approach to the use of our facilities at Shannon is similar to the approach of France and Germany, countries that are opposed to the war. Occasions such as this demand careful reflection. Those of us in government have a grave responsibility to arrive at a balanced well thought-out decision that reflects the national interest. We must be sure that the decisions we reach are responsible in the short-term and that in the long-term they reflect the interests of the Irish people.

Historically, Ireland has always had close links with the US. Since US independence those strong ties have continued. Recently, the former president, President Clinton, was a major player in the framing and conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement. In enabling the framework necessary for its conclusion to be implemented he undertook close personal involvement that was critical to its success. The Bush administration has continued this positive input into resolving the current difficulties in the North.

At times of war people expect to be able to count on their friends. Thus while Germany is opposed to this war it is fully facilitating the US in transporting its military from its many air bases in Germany. France, while opposed to the war, is also facilitating the US by allowing it existing facilities. Similarly, a number of Arab states are also facilitating the US through the provision of airspace.

On the British position in this war I suggest that we should not forget that the Good Friday Agreement would never have happened but for the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. Do not forget that he was the most critical negotiator in its conclusion. No other British Prime Minister had ever given the resolution of the Northern problem such detailed attention. The positive force of his personality and his openness were important during the more problematic phases of the negotiations. In recent times he was prepared to devote time to devising a means of overcoming the current impasse even though he was facing many problems, particularly in regard to the war with Iraq.

I remind the House that a major factor in our economic success over recent years has been investment by US companies. While such matters are important the critical issue that should be used to guide us in our decision is whether such a decision is right or wrong. Are we justified in withdrawing the facilities at Shannon from the US? I believe that we have got the balance right. In many ways neutrality has at times allowed the luxury of not taking a position, but on this occasion we have to make a choice and take a decision. I believe that we have made the right choice.

In exercising our right as a free nation in relation to the use of our facilities by the US we will not withdraw facilities that they have used for 50 years. This is the least we can do for our partners in the Northern Ireland peace process and for the two countries in the world with which we have the closest family and trading links. I commend this motion to this House.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin)

It is a dark day that in this third month of the third year of the third millennium war has broken out involving one of the major powers of the world. This day has shown us that the resolve of the leaders of the 20th century that the war to end all wars would be the last war has been broken, that diplomatic efforts have failed and that the structure for conflict resolution has been found wanting.

Over recent months the world has watched. We have watched the UN Security Council resolutions and hoped that the threat of force would be sufficient to bring the potential conflict to an end without having to resort to force. We hoped war could be avoided. All in the House share in declaring ourselves against war. Last weekend I had the honour of representing the Government in New York at the St. Patrick's Day celebrations. At every function, everyone I met declared himself or herself against war. It is a different matter today as the war has broken out. The questions we asked last week are not the same ones we ask today.

I regret that action has been taken outside the United Nations. Ireland stands now where it has always stood. It is and remains militarily neutral. Ireland is not participating in the war but is following a line consistent with its foreign policy. It is regrettable that war has broken out but there are two sides to the war. It is not a question of being for or against war. We have long, historical, cultural and economic ties with our friends in the United States. There are economic arguments and there are 100,000 people directly employed in US firms in this country. On today's news a further 327 jobs with a US company were announced for the midlands.

We have watched the direct involvement of both the UK and the US in the peace process here. A Government decision is not taken on economic grounds alone. It is taken on what is in the best interest of the people. Cad tá ar son leasa muintir na hÉireann? Those interests have proven to us that we should not change our policy and we should not withdraw facilities which have existed in Shannon for over 50 years. It is not sufficient to say that we take this line because of the links I have outlined. We stand for the basic principle of democracy over a despotic regime. We stand for the principles of freedom as against oppression and for justice as against injustice. We know where we stand in this conflict.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Illegality is what we should stand against.

Ms Hanafin

We also stand beside the people of Iraq and their humanitarian needs. We are putting pressure on the United Nations to mobilise its full resources to look after civilians, particularly children, who have suffered so much under the regime of Saddam Hussein in recent years. The UN must ensure that the instability we see in this region will not spread to other hotspots throughout the world.

Kofi Annan said that when the UN was created it represented humanity's greatest hopes for a just and peaceful global community. The United Nations is still our greatest hope. It has had its failures over the years. It failed in Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor and Angola. It has also had successes. It had success in Cambodia and on land mine clearance. It ensured that peacekeeping forces in Namibia, Mozambique, Macedonia, Lebanon and Cyprus were successful. We look to the United Nations, in the hope that this conflict is short, to ensure that with its near global membership it will continue to defend human rights. We look to it to address the causes of the conflict that exist in these countries. Those causes are economic despair, social injustice and political oppression.

Our greatest hope remains within the United Nations. While regretting that this conflict has broken out today we must ensure that we continue the policy which is in the best interest of justice and democracy and of the Irish people.

Mr. Haughey

The attack on Iraq by the US, supported by the UK and others, must be seen as a major setback for humanity. The hopes of mankind at the dawn of the new millennium for a new world order based on multilateral diplomacy have been dashed. Instead, we are reverting to an archaic world where war, in the main, is utilised to resolve international disputes between nation states. This is a depressing prospect and represents a major failure on the part of the international community.

Irish people, for historical and other reasons and because of their Christian tradition, are opposed to war generally and the vast majority have watched recent developments with despair. This war could bring massive loss of life and destruction to the 24 million citizens of Iraq and many of the victims will be innocent men, women and children. Sanctions have already resulted in a humanitarian crisis, but war will be a catastrophe for the people of that desperate country.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He has even used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and therefore he must be disarmed. Obviously, there are serious disagreements as to how this should be achieved. The case for war has not been established at all and the alternative of allowing more time to UN weapons inspectors to do their work should have been pursued further. The outbreak of this war represents a major failure for the UN and, to a lesser extent, the EU.

This issue extends way beyond the crisis in Iraq. We must now ask what is the alternative to the multilateral diplomacy of the UN in the resolution of disputes. How will the international system be organised for the next century? How will the next crisis after Iraq be tackled? A superpower like the US, often pursuing its own interests, cannot be allowed to become the sole arbiter in international conflicts. The authority of the UN will have to be asserted and its primacy in international affairs restored.

In many ways, this war is different to those of the past. Public opinion has for the first time played a key role in the unfolding events in many countries, including Ireland.

Mr. Boyle

Hear, hear.

Mr. Haughey

This is a new trend in international affairs. Foreign policy is now an important political issue for the electorate, which I welcome. The anti-war marches that took place in Dublin and elsewhere are clear evidence of this trend.

The fundamental principle underlying our foreign policy is our neutrality. We are neutral militarily in that we are not part of a military alliance, but there is also a moral dimension to our neutrality in that we aim to promote peace, justice and basic human rights throughout the world through the UN and other international organisations.

The moral thing to do in respect of the granting of landing and over-flight facilities at Shannon Airport would be to stop the use of the airport by the US forces. However, I regret very much that this is not possible at this time. The Government is obliged to take into account the national self-interest and other realities. I am sure there is principle behind—

Mr. Gormley

The Deputy is beginning to sound like Clare Short.

Mr. Haughey

—the positions adopted by the USA, the UK, France, Germany and Russia with regard to this issue, but I am sure there is also a pragmatic aspect to their stances. It is obvious that they have also taken economic and commercial considerations into account. The Government has signalled that, because of US investment in this country, the role played by the USA and the UK in our peace process and other considerations, it would be prudent to continue to make Shannon Airport available to the US military. I accept the Government's assessment of the matter reluctantly.

Mr. Sargent

The Deputy was doing so well.

Mr. Haughey

I hope that this war will be short, that loss of life will be minimised and that the centrality of the UN in international relations will be asserted once the conflict is over.

Mr. Sargent

The Deputy should be called Seán Short.

Ms F. O'Malley

This is a sad day. The war has begun and fear and anguish are widespread throughout the world. That military action is taking place without a second UN resolution is both damaging and deeply regrettable.

Mr. Sargent

It is illegal.

Ms F. O'Malley

It is damaging because failure to achieve a resolution is being exploited by Saddam Hussein to his own advantage. To have to listen to such a man, who has visited unspeakable atrocities and cruelties on his own people, tell us how to conduct international affairs is sickening.

Mr. Gormley

What about George Bush?

Ms F. O'Malley

Undoubtedly, the coalition forces would have had much more international support and greater moral authority if a second resolution had been secured by the UN Security Council. However, this is not to be and we must deal with the world as we find it.

I am uneasy about the continued use of Shannon Airport by allied aircraft in the absence of a second resolution. I accept the advice presented to the Taoiseach this morning that the continued use of the airport does not breach our Constitution. Since war has started, Ireland needs to place itself in the best position so it will have as much influence as possible in post-war conditions.

The Iraqi issue has caused a genuine crisis for the UN. Its authority has been undermined, divisions have been exposed, its future is uncertain and a new rule book will have to be written. It would be tragic if the present crisis were to do it lasting damage. Once military action is completed there will be a real opportunity for the organisation to assert itself.

Even limited and well-targeted military action will cause ferocious damage and displacement. However, post-war Iraq will have help from the international community and the UN is the organisation best placed to take the lead in that process. Neither the US nor its allies will be able to manage the humanitarian mission or the task of rebuilding the country on their own. They will have to have the authority of the international community, thus implying a role for the UN.

I was pleased to see that it was proposed at the Azores Summit to give the Secretary General authority on an interim basis to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people are met.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Afghanistan is getting no humanitarian aid—

Ms F. O'Malley

The Japanese Government has already stated that it would be prepared to get involved in a major aid effort in Iraq after the conflict. I am sure many other countries feel likewise and would be prepared to follow suit. This is an area in which Ireland has established a certain expertise, not least of all due to the efforts of my colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, when she was in a position to make a contribution as Minister of State. Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State give serious consideration to this issue because Ireland could play a substantial role in sorting out the problems of post-war Iraq?

Rebuilding Iraq will not be easy as it has no tradition of democratic government, civil society as we understand it or order and stability. One must consider that it has been ravaged by Saddam Hussein's regime and abuse of the oil for food programme. These problems, coupled with the damage and displacement caused by war, give one some idea of the task that remains for the UN.

I am not a supporter of military action against Iraq in the present circumstances. A second resolution should have been secured first. However, military action is now under way and the allies who have instigated it must ensure that a real and determined effort is made to rebuild the country, restore it to peace and stability and replace dictatorship with democracy. This is the least the allies will owe the UN and the wider international community.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I propose to share my time with Deputies Gormley, McHugh, James Breen, Finian McGrath and Harkin.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Six months each.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Impím ar na Teachtaí a bhfuil coinsias acu agus a bhfuil tuiscint acu ar cad a tharlóidh mar thoradh ar an gcogadh seo, seasamh i gcoinne an rúin seo. Impím orthu seasamh leis an neodracht agus i gcoinne an chinnidh mí-dhleathach atá glactha ag Mr. Tony Blair agus ag Mr. George Bush. Ba chóir dúinn ar fad seasamh leis na Náisiúin Aontaithe agus leis na náisiúin ar fad a chuidigh linn chun cathaoirleachas a fháil ar Chomhairle Slándála na Náisiún Aontaithe. Ag an am sin, shíl siad go raibh an Stát seo neodrach agus go seasfaimís i gcoinne impiriúlachta an chéad domhain. Muna sheasann Teachtaí an Rialtais liomsa agus le mo chomhghleacaithe ar an dtaobh seo den Teach, beidh a lán cáirde caillte againn timpeall an domhain, beidh deireadh le neodracht an Stáit seo agus beidh buille mharfach buailte ar na Náisiúin Aontaithe.

With this motion the Government is committing itself to supporting and facilitating an unjust and illegal war. It is an act of moral and political cowardice destroying the last semblance of this State's policy of neutrality, and for what? A few crooked dollars or perhaps even the promise of those dollars.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Deputy would be better at collecting them than most of us.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

In selling its soul, the Government must accept the responsibility that goes with this act of war against the Iraqi people. It must accept that it has become culpable in the deaths of Iraqi children, women and hundreds of thousands of other uninvolved civilians who will be part of the US and British war's collateral damage.

The Government's actions, in allowing nearly 50,000 US troops and their munitions onto Irish soil or across our airspace, is not only an act of war but it is in total contravention of the Hague Convention regarding the rights and duties of neutral states.

On that issue, I fail to understand the logic behind the Taoiseach's statement that to withdraw these facilities even at this late stage would be regarded as a hostile act. How can it be a hostile act if, for once, Ireland proclaims its policy of neutrality? How can it be a hostile act for us to carry out our duty as a State as per Article 5 of the Hague Convention or for Ireland to ask the US, and the other belligerents, to respect our neutrality and act in accordance with Article 2 of the convention?

For the benefit of the Deputies opposite who may not have read that document, or even understood it, it states: "Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power".

Mr. Cregan

We can do without a lecture from the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Ó Snodaigh, without interruption.

Mr. O'Dea

We are getting some technical advice from the Deputy.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I also draw the attention of the Minister and the Deputies opposite to Article 10 which states: "The fact of a neutral power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act." It is strange that Austria, Switzerland or other neutral states have not been labelled hostile for doing what this State should have done but, unlike this Government, they are not crawlers. Their Governments have a backbone and are willing to act in accordance with their neutral policy.

I urge the Deputies on the opposite side of the House to stand up and be counted, oppose Ireland becoming complicit in this war, destabilising this region and undermining the United Nations. I urge the Minister and the Taoiseach to come clean about the sleeveen deal—

Mr. S. Power

Does the Deputy have any more jibes?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

—he has agreed with the axis of war.

Mr. S. Power

Give us some more jibes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

How was his backing for war bought? What promises did he get, and what grovelling will he have to do in the future for those promises to be delivered?

Mr. Cregan

That is a bit rich coming from the Deputy.

Mr. Gormley

The motion before the House today is an insult to the 100,000 people who marched for peace on the streets of Dublin on 15 February. Speaker after speaker called on the Government to discontinue the military stopover at Shannon. Unfortunately, their sincere wishes have been ignored by this callous and craven Government.

This motion is even more disappointing than we could have expected. I believed it would have conveyed some level of disapproval for this illegal war. Instead, it is an open declaration of support for the Bush Administration. Its eagerness to please is so unrestrained, it could have been written by the US State Department. Like Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, this motion regrets that there was no UN resolution. Like Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, it hopes this war will be over quickly. It is difficult to see any distinction now between this Government and Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair.

How is this motion compatible with Article 29 of our Constitution, which seeks the peaceful resolution of international disputes? How does it square with our commitment to the United Nations? This unilateral action, now endorsed by the Government, undermines the legitimacy of the United Nations. Above all else, how can the Government justify this motion in the context of Irish neutrality?

The concerns we have expressed have been dismissed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, who had the audacity to maintain in this House today that Ireland is still neutral. Please spare us that sort of rhetoric. Contrast our behaviour with that of other neutral states, including Sweden, Finland and Austria who have all said that this war is illegal.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Sweden is sending over the anti-tank missiles.

Mr. Boyle

That is Denmark.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

It is a different country.

Mr. Gormley

They are not permitting their airports to be used.

A Deputy

The Deputies opposite are not interested in facts.

Mr. Gormley

I believe there are some on the Government backbenches who know that this war is unjustified, illegal, immoral and that it will lead to death, destruction and a humanitarian crisis. I appeal to those people to vote with their consciences, stand up for some sort of principle and have the courage of their convictions. I ask them to consider voting with the Opposition on this one occasion.

Mr. Glennon

The Deputy has no chance. He should spare his voice.

Mr. Gormley

The Deputies opposite may laugh, and if I cannot appeal to their sense of idealism I may be able to appeal to the Government's much vaunted sense of pragmatism because a pragmatic individual would ask himself or herself a number of questions. Will this war make the world a safer place? Will this war against terrorism lead to less terrorism? If any one of the Deputies opposite had an ounce of common sense, he or she would conclude that this war will be counterproductive, will destabilise the entire region and swell the ranks of the terrorists.

We must learn something from our own history and look at the consequences of internment. Some people thought that was a good idea and that it would nip terrorism in the bud in a sort of pre-emptive strike, but we have had to live with the consequences. Do the Deputies opposite want to facilitate that?

Regrettably, there are many on the Government benches who are in denial. To me, they resemble all those Germans at the time of the Third Reich – the train drivers, the clerks and all those who facilitated the Holocaust.

Mr. Cregan

How dare the Deputy.

(Interruptions).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Gormley

They should remember that when they press the electronic button here this evening approving of this motion, they might as well be pressing a button to kill Iraqi women and children.

Mr. B. Lenihan

No.

Mr. Gormley

They should take responsibility for their actions and not deny them. In backing this motion the Deputies opposite are backing George W. Bush, a man who is dangerously simplistic and who has a deranged fundamentalist view of the world. I ask the Deputies opposite not to support this motion.

I quoted Paddy Kavanagh outside the American Embassy this week. Mr. Kavanagh wrote a few lines at the start of the Second World War in which he spoke about the loud lying and the empty bucket rattled. Today, we have heard the Government's loud lying and we have heard the empty bucket rattled. Shame on the Taoiseach and the Government. God help the people of Iraq and God help those people who vote for this motion.

Mr. McHugh

It is a truism that we are dealing with an issue here today, the war in Iraq, over which we have no influence. Any influence we may have had would be in relation to our involvement in the UN. If we had an inflated idea about our standing in the grand global order, it should have been well and truly shattered by the unilateral action of the US and the UK when the UN Security Council refused to do their bidding. They swiftly and without ceremony dumped on the members of the Security Council who were unceremoniously cast aside in the insane rush to war. War should be a last resort, a last option.

In this instance we must ask ourselves whether all avenues were exhausted. The answer is they certainly were not. The UN arms inspectors were doing their work in Iraq. Progress, albeit slow, was being made. The inspectors wanted more time, merely a few weeks, but the US and the UK deemed they were not entitled to that extra time. A chance was lost to avoid this war and to potentially save thousands of innocent lives. There is no justification for this war at this time. Without such justification and as a militarily neutral country, we should not do anything to facilitate this war.

There is a charge known as aiding and abetting in regard to which many people find themselves before the courts. They have not carried out a crime but by their actions have facilitated its execution. Why would the Government not expect to be guilty of the same charge by virtue of its proposal to facilitate the US military on its way to this war? I cannot support the Government motion because there are too many issues that should have been addressed but were not before the war option was pursued.

Mr. J. Breen

I am totally opposed to this war, but I must take a balanced view of situation in the interests of my constituents and the people of the west. There are people working in Shannon – most of whom I know personally – who solely depend on Shannon Airport for their livelihoods.

At this point, it is convenient for the Government to allow Shannon to be used by the American war planes to refuel, but I point out to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment that this is not the day to address future investment in the area. However, I will remind them at a later date that the risk being taken and the fears of reprisals are frightening for the people of Shannon and the surrounding areas.

I fully realise there is a body of opinion against the use of Shannon by the American war planes. While I respect those people's view, I cannot agree with them. I attended a public meeting in Shannon last week at which not one person was opposed to military planes refuelling at Shannon. If we were to refuse them permission, people there, many of whom have young families and high mortgages, would lose their jobs. I will not act to do that in this House today. I honestly believe the use of Shannon in this regard should be allowed to continue. Major opponents of the war, France and Germany, are not contemplating withdrawing such facilities from the Americans.

The long-term future of Shannon as an engine of growth and development in Clare and the west cannot be overlooked. I cannot and will not vote to jeopardise the jobs of people employed in Shannon Airport. I will not support the amendments to the motion from this side of the House. I will vote with the Government in the interests of Clare, Shannon Airport and the people I represent.

Mr. F. McGrath

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address the House on this sad and historic day. I want to state clearly my total opposition to this war and to the use of Shannon. I am reminded of the famous words, "war is sweet to those who have not tasted it". I say this as one who has actively campaigned for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction held by many countries around the world. Many of us are sick to the teeth by the hypocrisy of the many Johnny-come-latelys to the disarmament movement. For years I have listened to the so-called great powers attacking and ridiculing those of us who were demanding nuclear disarmament, but we always said it should be resolved through development, dialogue and disarmament.

The United Nations was in the middle of that process, but the US and Britain together have pulled the plug. This has totally damaged the integrity of and respect for the UN. It is time for the people, particularly the people of Ireland, to win back their UN. It is time to stand up to the extreme right wing agenda of Bush and company.

It is totally immoral and an international scandal that in a week when 14 million people face starvation in the Horn of Africa, the US and Britain are about to spend $132 billion on war. This war will cost that amount. Some 10% of that budget would eliminate famine and poverty in a matter of months. This is the reality of war. Let us remember that in the 1991 Gulf War, more than 100,000 people were killed and 1.5 million died because of sanctions. Again, let us remind ourselves that this is the reality of war.

In relation to the Shannon issue, it is a cop-out to say that we allowed Shannon to be used during the Vietnam War and so there should be no problem doing it again. Do people really know what they are saying when they say that? Can they not remember the horrors of Vietnam? Can they not remember the bloodshed, massacres, death and destruction? Ask any Vietnam veteran what it was like. We all have a moral obligation to deny the US access to Shannon. Anything else would be an act of national cowardice and would also likely make us complicit in an illegal war.

There are moments in history where we can make a difference and send out a strong signal to the world. We can do this with Shannon and regardless of the opinion polls on the chat shows, we can take that tough decision in the interests of peace. Canada and Mexico have rejected the idea of assisting this illegal action, as have many other governments throughout the world. The Government should stop playing games, stop acting like Clare Short and give leadership on this major international issue.

I appeal to all the Government backbenchers to think again about this war and to stand up for an independent foreign policy line in the interests of international peace and human rights. It is no good wrestling with one's conscience in public and then supporting the use of Shannon as a military base. I urge all Members to vote against this motion, support the United Nations, support Hans Blix's team of inspectors and let the world know that Ireland is against this war.

Ms Harkin

We have heard a good deal about national self-interest in this debate, but let us call it by its real name, economic pragmatism. However, I suggest the situation is not as black and white as it has been portrayed. We are often given the impression that economic investment is all one way traffic. The Chief Whip, Deputy Hanafin, quoted the numbers employed in US firms in Ireland, but what about the other side of the story? In 1999, US companies employed 78,000 people in Ireland, but Irish companies employed 65,000 Americans in the US. Therefore, it is not all one way traffic. In 2001, €14 billion in cash and dividends was repatriated by multinationals based here mostly to the US. That means that every minute, €25,000 is taken out of Ireland in profits.

Mr. Eoin Ryan

Is the Deputy suggesting we should pull out of America?

Ms Harkin

Saddam Hussein is a brutal and corrupt dictator and his own people have suffered most. I do not know, and I doubt if anyone in this House knows, if he has weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, I base my judgment on a number of points. While Saddam Hussein has not complied with the UN inspectors, no chemical or biological weapons have been discovered to date and he has started, albeit very late in the day, the process of disarmament. As Hans Blix said, when he oversaw the destruction of the al-Samoud missiles, "we are talking about the breaking of tooth picks". Tony Blair could not convince his former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix, the independent weapons inspector, has said that the Iraqis have recently shown a more proactive attitude. As I said, I do not know if Saddam Hussein has such weapons, but I find the evidence presented so far does not justify the action taken by the US and the UK and, by extension, our facilitation of that action by providing facilities at Shannon.

I agree this is a difficult decision for everybody. We have strong ties – cultural, family and economic – with the US. It has received our emigrants, contributed to our economic success and invested a great deal of time and energy in the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cregan

So the Deputy supports them.

Ms Harkin

We respect this, we recognise it and we appreciate it, but it is here I differ with the Tánaiste. In a nutshell, she told us this morning that it does not matter what they do because they are our friends; we support them right or wrong, good or bad, legally or illegally. I cannot agree with that philosophy. The Government had a moral decision to make, a decision which also reflects the legal and constitutional position of our country. It lacked the courage and the principle needed to make the right decision on Shannon and, as a consequence, has made all of us participants in this illegal conflict. I am sorry to say that I believe it made the wrong decision.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mary Coughlan)

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Kitt, agus an Teachta Andrews.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mary Coughlan

We live in terrible and uncertain times. War is on our television screens and on radio. It is immediate, urgent and terrible. Modern communications bring us the real time terror of war as it unfolds. One man who knew much of the horror of warfare, General Robert E. Lee, reminded us that: "It is well that war is so terrible lest we should grow too fond of it."

In our homes today, we will have hourly reminders of the failure of diplomacy. We should grow fond not of war but of those reminders of the failure of politics, and we should recall those reminders in the face of future conflicts. Modern communications bring us the consequences of the failure of modern diplomacy and politics. Warfare is the result of that failure which I regret. There is nobody in this House today who would not voice that same regret.

During our time as members of the United Nations Security Council we worked to bring about the passing of Resolution 1441, which demanded that compliance with weapons inspectors must be full, unconditional and immediate. It is clear that Iraq has failed to abide by Resolution 1441. It is the failure of the United Nations to agree on a new resolution, which could have forced the Iraqi regime to comply with the demands of the international community, that sees Iraq as a new battlefield on the world map.

Today, there is warfare in Iraq. I regret that, and that the coalition forces have acted in the absence of agreement on a further UN resolution. When the warfare ends, it is inevitable that there will be a heavy cost, in human life and in the destruction of the country's infrastructure. We do not know the outcome, the final damage and what the future holds for Iraq and its people.

Saddam Hussein has subjected his own people to years of suffering. He has subjected them to chemical weapons, has repressed and murdered them and ruled with a tyrannical fist. He has scorned international law. Ireland is neutral and remains neutral. We are not participating in the military action that now engulfs Iraq. We can only hope that it will be brief and that human life will be spared.

We should now focus on the future provision of humanitarian aid for the peoples affected by this war and the reconstruction of Iraq. Our concern now must be to work with our own NGOs, the United Nations and the European Union in responding swiftly to that humanitarian need. The Irish aid agencies, GOAL, Concern and Trócaire, have honourable histories of helping those afflicted by poverty, famine and disaster. We must support them in their future work. Early news reports from northern Iraq today indicate that thousands of people are leaving their homes. These are the first signs of a potential refugee crisis and I welcome the European Commission's early response, to set aside €21 million for humanitarian funding for victims of this crisis.

There have been criticisms that Ireland has been aiding the American war effort by allowing its aeroplanes to land and refuel at Shannon. I reject those accusations which are without foundation and are misleading. Over-flight and landing facilities have been made available, with certain conditions, to the United States and other countries for over 50 years. In that time, there have been several military confrontations. In two specific cases, Kosovo and Vietnam, the US took action without the endorsement of the United Nations. It would be an extraordinary act now to withdraw those facilities. It could only be interpreted, and understandably so, as a hostile act.

Mr. Gormley

No, no.

Mary Coughlan

The practice of facilitating US aeroplanes carrying military personnel at Shannon is fully consistent with Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.

My fear, in this debate and in the wider debate taking place in the living rooms throughout the country, is that Ireland is seen to be hostile and unfriendly to the United States. That is not the case. There is deep concern about the potential loss of life in this conflict. I acknowledge the deep seated concerns and genuinely held views about this conflict. I respect those views and believe them to be sincere. However, we should remain conscious, in voicing regrets and concerns, that we do not damage our deep friendship and long standing relationship with America.

This Government has the difficult task of balancing our national interest with our international responsibilities. I believe we have struck that balance. I recommend the motion and look forward to the hour and the day this conflict ends.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kitt)

Ireland has a strong international reputation for responding generously to emergency and humanitarian crises globally and is ready to respond to the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable Iraqis in the coming days and weeks. We will carefully monitor the humanitarian situation in Iraq to gauge the precise needs of those directly affected.

As Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development co-operation and human rights, I have been closely following the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Iraq under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Our ongoing humanitarian assistance to Iraq has been targeted at relief programmes in nutrition, water and sanitation, rehabilitation of health services and assistance for Iraqi refugees in neighbouring Iran. Our partners in Iraq include Trócaire, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and UNICEF.

As a result of Ireland Aid's humanitarian experience to date, I have initiated a number of funding initiatives with key UN and NGO partners to enable them to respond in a timely manner to emergency humanitarian situations. In 2003, Ireland has already contributed €6.8 million to the UN High Commission for Refugees and €8 million to UNICEF for their global operations. These funds are deliberately not earmarked to ensure they can be utilised quickly and effectively for emergency and humanitarian planning and rapid responses by these key UN agencies. A sum of €750,000 was released to the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Activities, UNOCHA, to facilitate that agency to plan for prioritised humanitarian emergencies. Ireland is one of the only donors to have fully funded its 2003 pledges to these agencies. Our early funding provides much needed cashflow for these agencies at a time when they need it most.

In addition, last month I approved funding of €500,000 in support of start-up costs for key Irish NGOs. This will enable them to respond to major humanitarian emergencies in a more effective and timely manner. While it is up to the NGOs to decide the extent to which they might wish to respond to the Iraqi situation, they now have the resources available to either engage or scale up their response to this crisis.

The overall Ireland Aid budget for humanitarian assistance in 2003 is €23 million. This funding is used to respond to all humanitarian crises globally. In line with Ireland Aid objectives, priority is given to the most vulnerable groups in least developed countries, with a particular emphasis on Africa. To date this year, Ireland Aid has responded to the food security crises in southern Africa and the Horn of Africa, as well as to a number of so-called "forgotten emergencies" in west Africa. In the past year I have witnessed at first hand the extent of the food security crisis in Ethiopia and southern Africa. I have no doubt about the need for Ireland Aid to continue providing support to the countries where more than 30 million people remain at risk. Responding to the evolving situation in Iraq will now become an additional part of our humanitarian programme.

Understanding the current vulnerabilities of the Iraqi population is essential to analysing the potential humanitarian impact of the looming conflict. The refusal of Saddam Hussein's regime to comply with UN resolutions and the resulting sanctions have left approximately 16 million Iraqis dependent on government rations for their entire food supply through the oil for food programme. As this programme has now been suspended, the population will become even more vulnerable. Due to the deterioration in basic human living conditions over the past decade, Iraq's population of around 27 million is far more vulnerable to the shocks of war than it was in 1991.

Since 1991, Iraq's rank on the United Nations human development index has fallen from 96 to 127. No other country has fallen so far, so fast. Since 1990 there has been the highest increase of child mortality in the world in Iraq. It is now 2.3 times its 1990 level among under fives. The malnutrition rate is now estimated at around 25%, with 13% acutely malnourished. There has been a fivefold increase in low birth weight babies over the past few years, pointing to serious maternal malnourishment. The health care system has been seriously debilitated. Most hospitals have between three and five weeks' worth of medicines, while overall stocks for three to four months are held centrally. They could be inaccessible in the conflict.

Reports by UNICEF and Oxfam have stressed the importance of the links between Iraq's electrical supply capacity and public health. The majority of Iraqis depend on potable water and sewage systems that in turn rely on electricity. Electricity generation capacity is already badly degraded as a legacy of the Gulf War. Possible further damage as a result of the conflict could deprive millions of urban dwellers of access to clean water, leading to epidemics of preventable diseases such as diarrhoea, typhoid, cholera and respiratory infections.

One widely quoted UN document warns that "the collapse of essential services in Iraq could lead to a humanitarian emergency of proportions well beyond the capacity of UN agencies and other aid organisations". The document also reports that "in event of a crisis, 30% of children under five [that is, approximately one million children] would be at risk of death from malnutrition" and "access to war-affected civilians would be severely limited for the duration of the conflict". Such projections are based on estimates produced by the UN and other international organisations. At this stage, however, it is impossible to be precise, given the range of possible scenarios on how the conflict might unfold.

The policies of Saddam Hussein's regime have also created a large-scale problem of internal displacement even in advance of a new war. A deliberate attempt to Arabize the key oil-producing centre of Kirkuk has driven Kurdish civilians north into the three northern governorates, close to the border with Turkey. The Marsh Arabs and the Shiite Arab communities have also been targeted for persecution. A recently published study estimated the number of internally displaced people in Iraq at about 900,000, with more than 300,000 located in the central and southern regions controlled by the Iraqi regime and the balance in the autonomous zone in the north.

While the humanitarian situation in Iraq threatens to become very difficult, the challenges facing the international community can, in my view, be met. We have garnered valuable experience and lessons from similar humanitarian situations, most recently in Afghanistan.

Mr. M. Higgins

Yes.

Mr. Kitt

Our aim must be to avoid the mistakes of the past and incorporate the lessons learnt in a practical way in all our humanitarian activities. To secure the effective mobilisation of support from bilateral donors and international agencies, I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the co-ordination by the United Nations in all phases of the international response to any crisis. Over the past few weeks, I have had a number of informal contacts with international organisations and NGOs to discuss contingency planning in relation to Iraq. Our permanent missions to the United Nations in New York and Geneva are in close contact with the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and other relevant humanitarian agencies about their plans. Today, I have invited key NGO partners in Ireland to meet me next week to discuss the unfolding situation and the likely scenarios for Ireland's humanitarian response to this crisis.

I assure Members of the House that Ireland will respond as generously and effectively as possible to the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people as the situation unfolds. We will fund those agencies and NGO's optimally placed to deliver the wide range of basic needs and services which will be essential to protect the most vulnerable.

War has begun and we now have to deal with that reality. We have to live in the real world which may not always be as we would like it. We earnestly hope and pray that this war will be a short one. We did not want this conflict to happen. Innocent lives will be lost and there are many other risks attached, as I have stated before both in this Chamber and in the Upper House, including an unpredictable impact on the stability of the region, in particular the Middle East, and the prospect of increased tensions between the western world and the Moslem world.

This is not a time for triumphalism or recrimination against those who had a different view, such as France and Germany who are on opposite sides to the United States, and indeed New Zealand, where I recently discussed the situation at some length with the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. We must respect freedom of speech, a freedom that is denied in Iraq, which is the subject of our debate today. All wars are brutal and cruel affairs. The current war, which is being and will continue to be portrayed in some television coverage as some sort of hi-tech, virtual reality event, will be even more brutal and devastating than past conflicts that are well documented.

This war reflects the failure of diplomacy. The international community and in particular the super powers must emerge from this conflict with strong sensitivity towards the concerns of many countries in the Arab world and to the pressures on Governments in the Muslim world who, in many cases, are endeavouring to fight the growth of terrorism within their own borders and will now, no doubt, have to deal with increased anti-western sentiments among their populations. They must recognise the complexities surrounding this conflict.

As Minister of State with responsibility for development and human rights, I will spare no effort in ensuring that with our NGOs, the European Union and, I stress, in particular, the United Nations as a central player, we will carry out the humanitarian recovery work that will be required.

Mr. Andrews

I wish to share my time with Deputy Cregan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are only five minutes remaining.

Mr. Andrews

With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to share just a minute.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Andrews

One of the arguments made during the debate is that the French Government would present the United States with an opportunity for landing and overflights if we failed to afford that facility. To counter that argument, it has been said that the French are not neutral so we cannot make that comparison. However, the French are in the same position as we are in that they are against this war. They regret the fact that there has been no second UN resolution and, as such, they are against the war and not neutral. What has exposed that position is that neutrality is very difficulty to pin down. Clearly, it means different things to different people but, at worst, it is the absence of a policy. Irish neutrality is not defined anywhere, certainly not in the Constitution. I have only ever seen it defined in the Hague Convention, where it is defined in a negative sense by listing things one cannot do when one is neutral, but the convention does not list anything positive one can do. It leaves those who bow at the altar of neutrality in a very difficult position because it confuses the debate.

What is really at stake here, however, is the future of the United Nations and that is what I am most concerned about. The current policy of the United States under President Bush has displayed total disregard for multilateralism. Bush was unperturbed by foreign policy before he was elected to the White House in 2000 and he will get his own way regardless of any international agreements. He failed to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, a ban on landmines and nuclear non-proliferation. I fear that the attack on Iraq is the first of many.

The UN will have to redefine its position in a post Cold War world where the real threat to international peace comes from non-state players, such as al-Qaeda, or internecine disputes such as we saw in Rwanda. The United Nations does not have an answer for these threats and as long as that is the case, the United States, certainly under the current Administration, will proceed at its own speed in whichever way pleases it.

As my time is short, I will come to the question of Shannon Airport and the consequences of passing the Government motion. For example, if we were to oppose the use of Shannon by the Americans it would have no effect on US thinking and neither would it help the humanitarian situation in Iraq. If we stopped Shannon from being used by the Americans it would not affect our economic well-being. We should make these decisions on their merits rather than on the basis of some threat of economic retaliation. There is no point in our carrying out a useless gesture by stopping those facilities – it would serve nobody and no one would thank us for taking that stance. US foreign policy is misguided in this situation but I recognise that the US is an important friend. I hope that dissension on this issue will not be misunderstood during the debate. I support the Government motion.

Mr. Cregan

I thank Deputy Andrews for giving me a minute of his time. As a Deputy from the mid-west region, I fully support and endorse the Government motion. Of course, in the absence of a second UN resolution it was a tough decision for the Government to take but good government is about taking tough decisions. On this occasion, a Fianna Fáil-led Government has been consistent in taking such decisions to ensure that we will continue to do what has been done since the early 1950s, that is, allow Shannon Airport to be used for refuelling. Speakers have mentioned American jobs and other benefits to the country in general and Shannon in particular but, with respect, those are side issues. The Government made its decision to allow refuelling to continue, taking all the circumstances into account. That is the correct decision and it is one we will not regret taking. We can stand over fully what we have done.

Opposition speakers have mentioned the 100,000 people who marched in an anti-war protest in Dublin. I take their point and, of course, they are entitled to their opinion.

There are, however, three million other people in this country who have not marched and we must listen to their opinion. We must always legislate for the common good and not for the fair day supporter. Fianna Fáil has been consistent and this motion has been tabled for the common good which is welcome. I fully support the motion.

Mr. P. Breen

I wish to share my time with Deputy Durkan.

I wish to speak about the position of Shannon Airport. Countries, people, Governments and political parties all over the world are divided on this war. It is a complex situation and people's views must be respected.

Shannon Airport has recently become the centre of attention for the wrong reasons. It is sad that it has taken the current situation in Iraq for the Government to focus on the real value of Shannon Airport to Ireland. The facilities at Shannon Airport have been used by American military aircraft since the 1950s and will continue to be used in the future. The business they bring to Shannon is welcome but it is intermittent and could not be described as core business. Until the Iraq crisis and until the US began the deployment of troops to Kuwait, American military traffic was of no significance to the Shannon balance sheet since the last significant traffic during the Gulf War 12 years ago.

The Taoiseach has claimed that to withdraw facilities at Shannon would be considered a hostile act by the American Government. This may be so but the hostile act which sticks in the minds of most people in Clare and in the mid-west is when a woman from west Cork was allowed to cross the perimeter fence at Shannon Airport and stick a hatchet in the nose of a military aircraft. It was this and the two other breaches of security at Shannon Airport which resulted in the loss of American business and the Government must take full responsibility for this. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications were warned by me in the House of the inadequacy of security at Shannon Airport but, in their arrogance, they stood idly by and allowed Shannon Airport to become the centre of attention of the world media at a time when the fear of terrorist attacks, particularly against air traffic, was on everyone's mind.

The Government has done nothing for Shannon. The Minister for Foreign Affairs when he was Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications seriously eroded Shannon Airport's position in its re-negotiation of the bilateral agreement with the US. Neither the Minister for Transport nor his predecessor did anything for Shannon. The last major investment in Shannon Airport was made by the rainbow Government when the new terminal building was built.

Since 11 September there has been a loss of many services in Shannon Airport. Only two weeks ago Ryanair transferred its German flights from Shannon to Farranfore while the Minister for Transport stood idly by. We do not even have a regular seven day Shannon-Dublin link. Such a service is very important to business in the region. Aer Lingus discontinued the flight after 11 September and Aer Arann took up the route, but it did not work out. Skynet is now prepared to take up the route but again it has been left on its own by this Government. A €60 return fare to Dublin might sound very attractive but when Government taxes are included the final fare is €95 which is not very attractive when one sees other regional airports getting massive subsidies on the same service. I call on the Government to address the serious issue of the Shannon-Dublin link.

It is an open secret that the Minister for Transport and the Government have already decided to shaft Shannon Airport when the Ireland-US bilateral agreement is negotiated later this year. This is the most serious issue for Shannon Airport since the loss of the stopover and the Minister for Transport must be prepared to veto any attempts by the European Commission to interfere with the current bilateral agreement. The Government owes this to Shannon Airport, to the airport police and the security workers who have worked long hours in recent times. This must be backed up by real funding for Shannon. Today's debate provides an opportunity for my pragmatic Clare colleagues who support the Government to wrap themselves in their pro-American clothes to display their commitment to Shannon as if they believe that the American traffic will solve Shannon's problem. It will not solve Shannon's problem, and they know that.

Last week I was at a meeting in Shannon attended by over 300 people. They support Shannon and did not mention the word "war". I call on my colleagues in Clare to support my campaign to secure the future of Shannon. Let us get together to ensure the Government takes real practical steps to make the necessary investment in and to secure the future of Shannon as an international airport. Some of my colleagues may not realise the importance of Shannon Airport to the mid-west region for tourism, industry and growth. I will continue to work within my party, Fine Gael, for the people of Clare to make sure they are better informed.

This debate has been a mixture of pragmatism and principle, which is proper. Without any offence to those who serve Ireland so well in the Department of Foreign Affairs, the old adage that a diplomat is a patriot who must be prepared not to die for his country but to lie for it still holds. As a Clare Deputy, I appreciate the mixture of pragmatism and principle in the Government's motion but Shannon Airport needs more than the clever drafting in this motion. I look forward to a real commitment by this Government to Shannon Airport. It owes it to us. Shannon Airport must not be used as a pawn. Like the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, I look forward to the day when the conflict ends.

Mr. Durkan

I compliment Members on both sides of the House who made serious and well thought out contributions to what is a serious debate. I will refrain from the opportunism displayed by a couple of Members opposite who, for purely jingoistic reasons and in the absence of other genuine reasons, failed to come up with an answer.

The points on which we must reflect are those raised by several speakers, particularly Deputies Gay Mitchell, Kenny, Michael D. Higgins and Rabbitte. Nobody has the monopoly on right or wrong in this issue and those who pretend they have are missing the target, and that is not a pun in these circumstances.

For many years the sacred cow of this country has been neutrality. The main Government party would live and die on a diet of neutrality. Every time Deputy Gay Mitchell, Deputy Kenny or somebody on this side of the House made suggestions about this country contributing to defence and security in an alliance of some sort, it was pooh-poohed straightaway as totally out of the question. Typically, when an issue arises the main Government party has, with a certain amount of elasticity—

Mr. M. Smith

I thought Deputy Durkan said he was going to be serious.

Mr. Durkan

—which the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith has displayed on many occasions, been able to circumnavigate the situation in such a way as to be all things to all people at all times. That era has come to end. In the international world, people expect one to have a view, to stand by it and to be consistent. That is why Fine Gael has taken the view it has adopted which is totally consistent.

A new question is emerging in regard to what will happen in the event of international insecurity in the future. Who will take action and at whose request? Will it be taken by the UN which, after all, has been severely damaged in recent years? The UN has been damaged because a number of countries decided to ignore it, not to contribute when necessary and to withdraw or withhold their contribution, whether verbal or financial when the occasion arose. This has done severe damage to the UN which, in the Balkans, very soon found its hands were manacled and it was unable to operate.

On whom do we rely for defence and security? Do we expect that somebody somewhere will look after the defence and security of this country? Deputy Gay Mitchell published a document which clearly outlines the necessity for this country to focus on that issue and to recognise what is happening around us. The position, as outlined by the Fine Gael Party leader and by each of our speakers, is that we are totally consistent. We have said in the past that we believe there is a necessity for an organisation such as the UN to which all nations can contribute and support and which we, in the past, have repeatedly supported in the four corners of the world. Are we suggesting that our support was not well placed and that we did not do the right thing? I do not think anybody would suggest that.

What about NATO? Where does it stand? NATO is also divided because not all members support the initiatives taken. I do not comment on the rights or wrongs of the war, but it should be noted that there is no worldwide defence and security system upon which neutral countries can rely. The quicker we attempt to influence other countries in a similar situation to do something about this the better.

In recent times the European Union has emerged as the biggest and most powerful economic and political entity, yet responsibility for its security and defence rests with nobody. Without firing a single shot, Saddam Hussein has succeeded in dividing the EU, the UN and NATO. It is an amazing performance. We should recognise our present position as a major player in the European scene. I call on Members on the other side of the House to make proposals for dealing with this new situation.

The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, should be aware that this serious issue has implications far wider than what will happen at Shannon Airport. Countries like Ireland, whether non-aligned or neutral, have failed to make realistic proposals to deal with the new situation. It is wrong for Members on the other side of the House to sit on the fence and castigate those who hold an alternative view.

I will not pain the Members on the other side of the House by commenting on the views on Shannon Airport held by the Fianna Fáil director of elections for Donegal South-West. I disagree with them, but unlike his party colleagues, I recognise that the fig leaf of neutrality is beyond a joke. Everybody knows that Fianna Fáil is trying to cod them from one subject to the next and as the occasion arises. I am not afraid of war because there are times when it is necessary to fight one's corner and be on the right side. Nor am I a pacifist, but I believe that war should be avoided for as long as possible.

The Fianna Fáil Members of the House must have had a special arrangement with Saddam Hussein in view of the beef exports to Iraq, which a former party leader authorised, most of which was not paid for. The Irish taxpayer had to pay later.

Mr. M. Smith

The Deputy looks well on it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Durkan, without interruption.

Mr. Durkan

If that was not an expression of friendship to the Iraqi leader what was it? Why have Fianna Fáil Members of the House not told us that they were buddies of Saddam Hussein? What has happened to strain their special relationship? Why have they cast him out without even the opportunity of a trial? Far be it for me to accuse them on this issue because that was then and this is now. How often have we heard that from the Fianna Fáil Party? No matter what the difficulties, it has always managed to succeed in reconciling its views with reality. It is attempting to do the same in this instance.

It is time we gave serious consideration to how this country can look after its own defence and security. Recent escapades at Shannon Airport exposed serious deficiencies in this regard. If we are incapable of protecting one or our international airports to such an extent that a person can cause serious damage with a hatchet, our defences are seriously at risk. It is time the Government considered to what extent we are prepared to provide security to vital and sensitive defence installations. Over time, the risk of damage or acts of sabotage to these installations will increase. I ask the Minister for Defence to act before it is too late. We should not have to read in the morning newspapers that somebody has broken into or damaged a vital or sensitive installation. We should be able to ensure adequate protection is provided before something goes wrong.

In many circumstances it is necessary to take up arms to defend one's position. The Second World War is a classic such example and was referred to by Deputy Gay Mitchell and Deputy Kenny. The League of Nations was humiliated and made powerless as the world stood by. A former British Prime Minister negotiated with Hitler and declared there would be no war, yet soon afterwards war broke out and he had to resign.

We do not want events to sneak up on us unprepared. In previous times, when the country did not play such a prominent international role it was all right for us not to act while others made the decisions, but that is no longer tenable. We must give a lead. Thus far, the lead we have given has been acceptable. However, although they would not claim to be always right, Members on this side of the House have expressed their concern about the way the Government is proceeding. We must give careful consideration in the aftermath of this war to the emergence of a new institution that will provide the facilities previously looked after by the UN. Who will do that?

Mr. B. Lenihan

A new rainbow.

Mr. Durkan

I do not expect Fianna Fáil to provide the answer. Whatever happens, a great deal of time, influence and energy must be put into addressing the outcome of the conflict and the replacements for the UN, NATO and the EU defence and security policy.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Cullen)

I wish to share time with the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, and the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea. This debate affects every part of our country and the world. That we have come together for this special debate is a stark demonstration of the world in which we live. The rules have changed and Iraq has failed to abide by UN Resolution 1441, which demanded that compliance with weapons inspectors must be full, unconditional and immediate. That has not happened, nor has Iraq complied with the previous 16 or 17 UN resolutions.

This threat to freedom by practitioners of hatred cannot be accepted by right minded individuals. The tyranny of Saddam Hussein exemplifies this changed world. This man has ruthlessly ruled a country through fear and terror, amassed weapons of unimaginable danger, gassed, tortured and murdered his own people and thrown the book on human rights out the window.

I want to make my position clear. I am not politically neutral on Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime or torture chambers or anthrax or the absence of basic human rights. Liberty is of a higher value than peace. We, in Ireland, know this more than most. That is why I am on the side of freedom for the Iraqi people and an end to their suffering. Saddam Hussein must go for the Iraqi people to begin to enjoy something approaching the rights we in Ireland enjoy.

I concur with previous contributors who stated there will be much suffering and death in the war, which I regret very much. I also regret a diplomatic solution was not reached at the UN. However, equally, there was no reference in the debate to the tens of thousands of people murdered, tortured and raped in prisons during Saddam Hussein's reign of terror for the past 25 years. He has ignored every UN resolution on Iraq and, unfortunately, if force is not used, he will remain in power to pursue his murderous regime. Nobody has asked the vast majority of Iraqi people to express their views on Saddam Hussein and his regime because they have no freedom.

I fully support the Government's decision to maintain the long-standing arrangements for over-flights and transiting in Ireland. It is, without question, the correct decision. My one regret in the debate is that the Opposition and the Fine Gael Party, in particular, has taken a different view. I have absolutely no doubt that if Fine Gael Members were on this side of the House they would do exactly what the Government has done and, therefore, I can only come to the conclusion that their position is based on short-term internal political advantage rather than dealing with the substantive issues faced by Ireland and the world. I have no doubt the Government's decision is correct. I commend the Taoiseach on his decision and on his absolute clear and consistent leadership on this issue over the past six months.

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

I am fascinated to know what the director of elections in Donegal South-West said. Perhaps Deputy Durkan could e-mail me.

Mr. Durkan

I would not keep the Minister of State in suspense for too long.

Mr. O'Dea

I will address my remarks to the Shannon issue. I have listened to the arguments put forward by the Opposition on this issue and, to put it at its most charitable and to keep the debate on an even keel, they are unconvincing. The Opposition has failed to explain why the two countries most vehemently opposed to war, namely France and Germany, have no difficulty providing air space and refuelling facilities. In an effort to explain away this awkward fact, Opposition Members have tried to draw distinctions that are totally irrelevant. For example, we have been told that France and Germany are members of NATO. Whether they are members or not, how can those countries reconcile their passionate opposition to war with participation in the war effort? The reality is they do not regard the provision of refuelling facilities and air space as participation in the war effort.

The Swiss Government has defined neutrality legally and acts in accordance with it own laws. The Austrian Government has decided to prevent the carriage of troops over its soil but it is prepared to permit its air space to be used for access to the Balkans. The Belgian Government has reversed a previous decision to refuse air space and refuelling facilities to the allied forces. The Swedish Government is out of the picture. There are no circumstances in which its air space could be used and no request was made.

I was dumbfounded to hear Deputy Kenny, for whom I have a great deal of respect, state we should be conscious of the terrorist threat at Shannon Airport. Is it seriously being suggested that we, as a sovereign Government, should base our foreign policy on the possibility of a terrorist threat from whatever source?

Mr. Durkan

The Minister should not go there.

Mr. O'Dea

If that is the position, we might as well abdicate our responsibilities and walk away. It is a sad, sad day for the law and order party.

Mr. Kenny

That is not the position. Does the Minister of State remember what happened in Bali?

Mr. Durkan

We will be kind to the Minister of State.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister of State, without interruption, please.

Mr. O'Dea

I am always prepared to put the national interest in the balance if something tangible can be achieved. The central question is whether the withdrawal of facilities that the US has enjoyed for half a century will achieve anything in practical terms. Will that save one life? The answer is obvious. It is a futile gesture, a textbook example of derelict idealism, yet it is insisted we have a moral obligation to withdraw these facilities. It is as if France and Germany have done their bit but, fortunately for them, they were members of the Security Council and could threaten to vote against another resolution or veto it.

As Ireland is outside the Security Council and did not have similar opportunities, we are expected to punish ourselves to establish our credibility, play Russian roulette with our national interest to prove ourselves, although nothing would be achieved, and indulge in self-flagellation to establish our ethical and neutral credentials or, like early Christians and St. Thomas More, flog and punish ourselves.

Mr. Durkan

Is this the same Minister of State who met a group of criminals in Limerick a few weeks ago?

Mr. O'Dea

Is it seriously expected that the Government should turn itself into a latter day version of King Canute's courtiers? If so, we have exactly the same prospect of preventing war as the good king had of turning back the tide. The only difference is the king was not at such risk of collateral damage. Since 1955, the truth of two premises has never been questioned. One is that Ireland is militarily neutral and the other is that foreign participants in foreign wars, in which we have no part and sometimes neither knowledge of nor interest in, can use our airspace and refuel at Shannon Airport and this does not compromise our military neutrality in any way.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

That was before the Freedom of Information Act. If the Minister of State had his way, we would not even know about it. The Government is trying to take that away—

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy should put on this tie.

Mr. O'Dea

This is not Saddam Hussein's parliament. We can speak freely here.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. Deputy Ryan should allow the Minister of State to continue. We had an orderly debate until the Deputy came into the House and if he does not behave, I will ask him to leave.

Mr. O'Dea

If it were to be otherwise, Ireland could be regarded as participating in every fire fight and spat in every part of the world because one of the participants traversed Irish air space or refuelled at Shannon Airport. Presumably if representatives of both sides availed of these facilities, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility, we would, by the Opposition definition, be participating on both sides. That is a logical absurdity. The precedents are clear.

Mr. Durkan

Will the Minister of State give way?

Mr. O'Dea

No. Recent American activity in Kosovo was not sanctioned by the United Nations but it is valid to argue that this activity was in pursuit of a humanitarian goal, even though the primary purposes were military and regime change. The US were allowed the same facilities during the Vietnam conflict and the parties opposite supported that – it would be impossible to describe the Vietnam conflict as humanitarian no matter how far one tried to stretch the English language. It is a historical fact that planes owned by the old Soviet Union, on their way to Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis, were allowed to refuel at Shannon.

What has happened to change the situation since Kosovo? How has what was regarded then as non-participation become participation? By what magical transformation has that happened?

A more radical doctrine emerged during this debate which is particularly associated with the Labour Party spokesman on foreign affairs. He believes that in foreign policy matters we should act with total disregard for our own interests and keep our eyes unwaveringly on the greater good of mankind. According to this doctrine foreign policy falls into two categories – one is an interest-based policy, which he says the Americans are pursuing. The other is an ethics-based policy or what he is pleased to call a normative foreign policy. This is a false if not facile distinction. The truth is that no country has ever pursued a foreign policy with total disregard for its own self-interest. National self-interest has always been the main determinant of countries' foreign policies. In direct reply to a question raised by Deputy Higgins earlier, I regard the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes as unethical and illegal but Ireland is not participating in a pre-emptive strike.

The reality is that the Rubicon has been crossed and the die has been cast. If we turn our backs on our friends and allies, as we are expected to do, including our greatest ally in both the past and present, the United States, we will have to take a lonely and hitherto untravelled road towards El Dorado, a world in which no State acts in foreign affairs other than in accordance with the dictates of morality, whoever defines that. We will find when we get there that it is a mirage and we should not be surprised when travelling that road, once we have gone too far to turn back, that we meet people coming back in the opposite direction who avert their faces in shame so we do not recognise them. We should not be surprised if these are the French and Germans – the Belgians have already come back. If we followed this doctrine to its logical conclusion we would find ourselves in this Nirvana, this paradise, in lonely, splendid, useless and damaging isolation.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

This is a solemn time for the world. Several weeks ago this House heard statements on the developing crisis and speaker after speaker on all sides of the House, including myself, stated that the Irish people did not want war. The intense diplomatic and political endeavour, driven primarily by the United Nations, appears to have run its course. When we last debated this matter the push towards war was gaining momentum but we held out strong hope through Resolution 1441 and the modest progress by Dr. Hans Blix and his team that war could be avoided. That we now find direct military action under way without a further UN resolution is a matter of great regret to the Government. We hope that military action by the coalition will be as short as possible and that the minimum suffering will be endured by the Iraqi population.

As members of the United Nations since 1955, Ireland has always believed in the concept of a collective system of international security. This has been the position of successive Governments and is reinforced in our programme for Government. Our position has consistently reaffirmed the primacy of the UN and the Security Council as the keeper of international order based on justice and law. It has been the long-held wish of the UN and the international community that Iraq divests itself fully of weapons of mass destruction. The fact that the mechanism to precipitate this now appears to be a war, without a second UN resolution is a scenario the Government and people would not have wished for.

I ask Opposition Members who oppose this motion to accept the Government's assurance that it was our firm desire to see a second UN resolution before any agreed strategy was embarked upon. This has not come about, which is regrettable and beyond our direct control. The Government, in keeping with its promise, has brought this motion before the House in response to the critically worsening situation. While regretting the outbreak of hostilities and the failure of diplomatic efforts, it is the Government's considered view that our national interest is best served in allowing a continuation of overflights and the use of Shannon by US aircraft. To many it may seem desirable to end our arrangement with the US now events have taken a turn for the worst but to do so would be short-sighted and would be to the detriment of this country and its people. Good government is about taking hard decisions which may at first glance appear to be against the will of many. Governments must lead and not follow, provided the motivation is at all times in the best interest of the people who have chosen them to govern.

The Government has been advised by the Attorney General on the legal issues arising from this situation and I will summarise that advice. The granting to the US and its allies of overflight permissions and the provision of landing facilities at Shannon do not constitute participation in a war within the meaning of Article 28(3) of the Constitution. There is a clear distinction between the legality of Ireland granting these permissions and providing these facilities on one hand and the legality in international law of the proposed armed conflict in Iraq on the other. These raise separate and distinct legal issues. There is a division of legal opinion on and doubts as to the legality of the proposed armed conflict in Iraq, however, the legal position of the US and UK on such conflicts cannot be dismissed.

The absence of a further UN resolution on authorisation of military action does not of itself determine that the US and UK legal positions are not sustainable. The fact that other states are granting overflight permissions and are providing landing facilities, while doubt exists as to UN authorisation, supports the view that there is no generally recognised principle of international law which would require Ireland to withdraw these permissions and facilities. In the absence of a UN resolution or judicial determination prohibiting the granting of permissions or the provision of landing facilities, Ireland is not now legally obliged to withdraw such permissions or facilities. In the event of such a UN resolution or judicial determination prohibiting the granting of permissions or the provision of landing facilities, Ireland would be obliged to cease those activities forthwith.

In granting overflight permission and landing facilities Ireland is not engaging in the peripheral use of force or acting in any other manner which is inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the UN Charter. Ireland is not acting contrary to Article 29.3 of the Constitution in the granting of overflight permissions or the provision of landing facilities to the US or its allies. In granting overflight permission and landing facilities Ireland has not become belligerent in the armed conflict in Iraq. Notwithstanding the absence of a further UN resolution and despite the very real threat of the dangers posed by military conflict, the Government is of the firm view that it is right to maintain the present overflight permission and landing facilities for US aircraft.

For Ireland to discontinue this long-standing arrangement would be to threaten to introduce an element of discord to a relationship which is in our national interest. This departure would undoubtedly cause a negative and damaging reaction in the US and such low level co-operation in no way affects our long-held position of military neutrality. We have stated clearly that we will not participate in military action against Iraq and it is wrong to interpret our position as endorsing unilateral action by the coalition.

Ireland remains firmly outside any military alliance, a matter reinforced recently at EU level through the Nice treaty. It is a bit rich to listen to Fine Gael lecturing the Government on neutrality when it was the first and only party to advocate abandoning a long-held position in its policy document of 2000, Beyond Neutrality, which advocated Ireland's participation in a formal EU defence pact.

Mr. Durkan

We proposed an alternative.

Mr. M. Smith

The author was none other than Deputy Gay Mitchell, who seeks to champion Fine Gael as the party of neutrality.

We must not lose sight of the underlying reason we are here today. Had Saddam Hussein not defied the will of the UN and the international community for over 12 years, his country would not be facing such upheaval. He has shown utter contempt for the UN and ignored numerous resolutions which have sought to compel him to give up his deadly arsenal of mass destruction. His belated engagement with the UN weapons inspectors has been grudging and inadequate.

This is the tyrant who invaded the neighbouring countries of Iran and Kuwait and in the former campaign showed no compulsion about using chemical weapons. His most chilling and infamous use of such weaponry of mass destruction was against his own people, when more than 5,000 Kurds were massacred in the village of Halabja.

Mr. Stagg

I wish to share my time with Deputies McManus, O'Shea and O'Sullivan.

I am ashamed of the actions or lack of actions of the Government which has told us that a possible loss of jobs in Ireland is more important than the deaths of hundreds of thousands of women and children in Iraq. I am ashamed of the spineless, crawling, craven actions and attitudes of the Government. Iraq is the most contained and inspected regime in the world. It is reduced in power and its people are on their knees as a result of sanctions and oppression from within. They are no threat to anyone. They are certainly no threat to the USA or Britain. Therefore, the USA or Britain have no right to attack unilaterally and destroy that country with the most awful and powerful weapons ever invented. Their actions and war are immoral and illegal. Deputy Michael D. Higgins made that case very clearly. Their immoral and illegal war is in breach of the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Convention and seeks to establish a new world order where might is right. Is this might to replace the United Nations Charter whose preamble offers the alternative to build a world order based on interdependence, mutual respect, tolerance and cultural diversity? In spite of the overwhelming pressures, arm-twisting, threats and massive bribes, the US and Britain failed to get a United Nations mandate for their immoral illegal war. The courage of the little countries such as Cameroon, Chile and Angola in the face of this pressure is in stark contrast to the craven, spineless behaviour of the Irish Government. It makes me ashamed, angry and afraid.

Together with millions of others all over the world, I want to know who appointed the US as the policeman of the world. Who gave it the right to decide what form of government was good or bad for others? Who gave it the right to decide that a particular regime should be changed? Who gave it the right to rain mayhem, destruction and death on the citizens of countries whose regimes do not please it? It does not have such a right. It usurped that right and it is acting without moral or legal authority. By lending support through the use of Shannon for these actions and by aiding the military war machine, we are complicit, participating and guilty, but not in my name.

Ms McManus

Now that war has begun, which is unprecedented in its genesis and inexplicable to many in its purpose, it is important that we speak plainly. The Government motion does not represent the views of the overwhelming number of Irish people in their opposition to war and unilateral aggression and their support for the United Nations as the only appropriate authority to disarm the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein.

The motion supposedly is about our national interest, yet that interest is being defined by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste in the most limited and lamentable terms. Their message, in essence, is that we should not upset our betters. No matter what we think, we should uncritically stand by our friends and, by implication, by our international investors. We are not to participate in the war according to the Taoiseach, yet our acquiescence to it is required. The use of Shannon Airport to facilitate this war effort, or not, is a political choice already made by the Government. Any of us who vote for this choice will be complicit in undermining Irish neutrality and no amount of legalistic cover or rhetoric will varnish that plain unvarnished truth.

We cannot stop the war but we can choose our role in regard to it. Every other neutral country in the European Union is refusing to do what we are being asked to do by a Government which is too craven to represent our true national interest. I listened to the British Prime Minister speak in the House of Commons and I was impressed by his conviction and willingness to confront terrible political challenges. One does not have to agree with Tony Blair to appreciate the contrast. We have a leader in our Government who has bobbed and weaved for as long as he could and who has avoided speaking openly about where he stands. It is clear, however, that if military neutrality is to mean anything to us, then we should be united in our view that this war is legally suspect, ethically unsustainable and, most of all, unnecessary. We should be united in our refusal to allow the use of Shannon Airport in the national interest, in the interest of our neutrality and in our opposition to the war. Already the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has called on governments adjoining Iraq to keep their borders open because the reality of war is coming home and thousands will be displaced as a result of this war.

Do we as a small country have a position that defends our neutrality and makes it clear we still exercise judgment at a time when it is being tested? It is clear that in any democracy the burden of proof is required. We cannot take at face value the justification for war. Even the US and Great Britain are bound to present a compelling case, which has not been done in this instance. Our response should be commensurate with that test but sadly we do not have a Government capable of meeting that challenge.

Mr. O'Shea

That Saddam Hussein is a barbaric dictator, capable of delivering the most horrendous torture and murder to the Iraqi people is not contested. He is not motivated by any ideological or religious commitment but rather by a single-minded and ruthless motivation to stay in power with an underlying ambition to be the Arab leader of the whole Middle East, the successor to President Nassar of Egypt. That Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who operates a regime of fear which makes it extremely difficult for any effective internal opposition to him is also uncontested. For all that, this war which has already begun is wrong.

The disarming of Saddam Hussein is an objective which is shared by all right thinking people throughout the world. Where the divisions arise is how is this to be done. Some 12 years of UN sanctions have not achieved it. According to the UN, more than 700,000 children die prematurely. There have been bombings every week by British and American aircraft, costing many Iraqi lives. It is ironic that popular feeling in Ireland is opposed to this war, given the links of friendship that have grown between Ireland and the two leading nations in the so-called coalition of the willing, Great Britain and the United States. We are faced with the appalling prospect of what this war may deliver to the people of Iraq.

The fact that this is a war which is not in support of the United Nations but rather in defiance of it has to be the determining factor in regard to taking up a definitive position. Why proposals such as the one contained in the new British resolution presented last week, that a decision of Iraq to provide 30 scientists for interview outside Iraq, with their families so as to avoid intimidation, did not emerge sooner must be a cause of profound regret. Agreement on this particular proposal and its implementation would surely contribute in a meaningful way to compiling a more comprehensive inventory.

Ms O'Sullivan

I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to put on record my profound sense of shame as a Deputy for the mid-west that our airport and region is being used, first, in the build-up to war and, now, in the war itself. I take issue with my mid-west colleagues on the other side of the House who suggested it is not a pre-emptive strike. This is a pre-emptive strike. It is a war which is wrong and will kill thousands of people. It is illegal in international law and against Article 29.3 of the Constitution. The 1907 Hague Convention, which is part of the international law, states: "Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power."

Our neutrality has been abandoned by the Government. The rule of the UN and its Charter has been defied. Why does the Government not have the backbone to take an independent stand as a neutral country? Why has our civilian airport been turned into a military transit post? That the economic argument is being used to justify the use of Shannon is a failure of Government aviation and regional policy which should be sustaining and developing Shannon as a civilian airport, dependent on business and tourism and not on military personnel.

In the short time available to me, I want to address the issue of the national interest. Surely it is not the national interest at any cost. The national interest matters, but not where we abandon our neutrality, use our civilian airport as a military transit post, abandon the development of the airport for the normal civilian use to which it should be put and become part of a war that is against the aims of the UN and international law. It is a pre-emptive strike and will undoubtedly cause the deaths of thousands if not more of our fellow human beings in another part of the world. It will destabilise a region and change the world.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. The Minister has 20 minutes.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I wish to use my 20 minutes to respond on behalf of the Government to some of the points and comments made by Deputies. Before that I would like to place on the record once again the core elements of the Government's position, some of which has been misrepresented in the debate and to underline the factors which have led us to adopt the position we are taking on over-flights and the use of Shannon Airport by the United States.

That we stand on the verge of military conflict is both a tragedy and a failure. A tragedy because any conflict, no matter who its protagonists may be, and no matter how worthy or unworthy its aims, brings suffering and death to combatants and civilians alike. A failure, because for 12 years, and as restated by Resolution 1441, the objective of the international community has been the complete disarmament of Iraq by peaceful means.

Our failure has been a collective one, in that it is through the United Nations that the nations of the world seek to act together to maintain international peace, stability and security. The credibility and prestige of the United Nations has suffered a heavy blow through the inability of the Security Council, so impressively united in the autumn, to agree now on an appropriate way forward.

The permanent members of the Security Council have a particular weight and authority within the United Nations. It is deeply regrettable, therefore, that they have been unable to work together to agree a path to the disarmament of Iraq without resort to force. It would be neither useful nor appropriate to speculate as to whether, if this or that had been done differently, it would have been possible for them to agree. The absence of a common approach among the permanent members left the Security Council without a clear compass by which to navigate. The international machinery of the United Nations is only effective when there is clear leadership from those member states entrusted with the heaviest responsibilities. The Secretary General has played a quite outstanding role in seeking to build and encourage this consensus, but his capacity to do so is ultimately defined by the willingness of the member states to facilitate his efforts.

It is a matter of the greatest regret to Ireland that the Iraqi crisis has now reached a point where military conflict has begun. This is exactly the outcome which we had worked to avoid during our time on the Security Council and since. The Government has consistently opposed the use of force, except as a last resort after all other possible means have been tried and failed.

There was a characterisation of our policy position over the past few months as being in some way sitting on the fence when in fact what we were trying to do was to encourage those within the Security Council to muster the necessary collective political will to progress this matter on an agreed basis as the only reputable way forward. Those who back factions in relation to this matter, those who take one side or the other—

Mr. Gormley

We back peace.

A Deputy

The Deputy should listen to the truth. The Deputy is not in Shannon Airport now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

Mr. Cowen

I seek on behalf of the Government the protection of the Chair. I am 19 years in this House and I am entitled to speak and I have some qualification to speak on this matter.

A Deputy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gormley

So have we.

Mr. Cowen

In relation to what we were seeking to achieve, the idea that one backs one crowd or the other within the Security Council was never going to resolve this problem and that is precisely the issue. If one wants an effective multi-lateral response then one has to build for a consensus approach within the Security Council. We did it on Resolution 1441. It was not possible on this occasion precisely because there were many, not just in this Parliament but in other parliaments and other democracies, who were trying to suggest that one country had the monopoly on virtue and wisdom. One does not go in there simply protecting national interests within the Security Council. One has a responsibility to the wider international community.

As Kofi Annan said at the special European Council meeting in Brussels recently, the give and take and compromise that was required to bring about an effective multilateral response was not forthcoming and that is to be regretted. During our two years on the Council we tried to bring about the effective multilateral response that was required of a genuine commitment to the United Nations. Some in this House who speak about the fact that we have not had a second resolution are on record in this House and elsewhere as saying that they would not accept a second resolution because they believe it was ultra vires anyway.

Mr. J. Higgins

That is not the point.

Mr. Cowen

The Deputy has had his say. What sort of an international order are we trying to create if there are people in this House who believe that the United Nations Security Council acts ultra vires when in fact that is the only place where we can determine the international legal situation in these circumstances? Ireland was a member of the Security Council when it unanimously adopted Resolution 1441. The resolution states clearly that Iraq's non-compliance with Security Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a threat to international peace and security. Nevertheless, it offered Iraq a last opportunity to bring itself into compliance.

The resolution then warned Iraq of serious consequences. Regrettably, Saddam Hussein made no genuine effort to convince the world of the seriousness of his intentions to disarm. Instead, he engaged in the gamesmanship and brinkmanship which have been his favoured tactics for more than a dozen years.

Ireland has repeatedly stated its view that if Iraq continued in its non-compliance, a second Security Council resolution should be adopted. We believe that this is what should have been done. The United States and Britain have long held the view that earlier Security Council resolutions already mandate the use of force and that no further authorisation is required. They are now acting on this belief. It is clear that there is no generally accepted view on the validity of the different interpretations and it is unlikely that agreement on this point can be reached.

I wish to make it clear that as far as the good faith of this Government is concerned we set the bar for ourselves when Resolution 1441 was adopted. There was disagreement because as Deputies who are aware of the situation will know, there is no explicit paragraph requiring a further resolution. Due to the absence of agreement at the time of the drafting of the resolution the Irish felt it should come back to the Security Council for a second resolution even if a unanimous legal view could not be obtained as to whether it was required but because the political legitimacy of any such action would be greatly enhanced were that to happen—

Mr. Gormley

It did not happen.

Mr. J. Higgins

It did not happen and the Minister stopped them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Minister to proceed without interruption.

Mr. Cowen

—and the support of the international community could be maintained to the greatest possible extent. That was an Irish achievement in Resolution 1441. I want to make it clear that we set the bar—

Mr. Gormley

The Minister set the bar at its lowest.

Mr. Cowen

—as to what we would demand and we have stuck to that bar. We have decided—

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Cowen

—that in the absence of a second resolution we are not in a position to participate in any military action. There was a lot of talk today about legalities which I will deal with in a moment. I will also deal with the over-flight and landing facilities issue about which some elements in this House sought to create confusion.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Minister should kick them out.

Mr. Cowen

The compelling political reality is that a second resolution would signal the unity and resolve of the international community and the clear legitimacy of any subsequent military action. Ireland would have been prepared to support a resolution of the Security Council to enforce its decisions had that been agreed. I recall that we urged the member states of the Security Council to consider three questions: What precisely did Iraq have to do to meet its demands? How long did it have to do it? How would the Security Council discharge its responsibility if Iraq did not comply? We asked those questions last January. If they had been asked within the collegiate of the Security Council at the same time I believe we would not be in the position we are in today. When people talk about entering into the logic of war by asking those questions, my response is that this was a final chance resolution, this was about immediate and full co-operation. Instead of allowing, as happened on all sides of the argument in my opinion, the use of the inspectors' report as a means of validation for their own particular positions, they should have been sitting down in a collegiate way answering those questions and reaching a compromise in relation to their respective positions in order that the prestige of the United Nations could have been upheld. That is our strong view—

Mr. Boyle

Who is wrong?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Boyle, you had your opportunity to speak. Please allow the Minister.

Mr. Cowen

—I said it at the European Union Council meeting and I have said it consistently since. Today, at the end of these long months of debate, those three questions remained unanswered. Unfortunately, by the time the member states were ready to address them, the die was cast in terms of the depth of disagreement within the Council for compromise to be possible between them. This entire crisis has arisen as a result of Saddam Hussein's persistent defiance which has continued over 17 Security Council resolutions and a period of 12 years and follows upon two wars and one million casualties. We hope that this coming conflict will be short. The participants in the military action against Iraq must take every care to see to it that the use of force is as limited and proportional as possible.

We look to those engaged in the conflict to minimise casualties, particularly among civilians. They will be well aware of their responsibility to respect international law, including the Geneva Conventions. The humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people was a major factor in the Government's approach to the issue of Iraq during Ireland's term on the Security Council. We worked earnestly to bring about a situation where the Iraqi economy was normalised to the extent possible, given the need to ensure that Iraq did not re-arm and that it met its disarmament obligations. That such a situation was not brought about in 2001 was primarily the fault of the Iraqi regime itself.

(Interruptions).

Mr. J. Higgins

The Government did not oppose sanctions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption. Deputy Higgins had his opportunity to speak.

Mr. Cowen

Deputy Higgins's behaviour might be appropriate in Trotskyite circles, but not in this Parliament. Ireland, as a council member, continued to work hard with others on humanitarian issues and these efforts paid off with the adoption of Resolution 1409 in May 2002, which provided that all non-military goods, not just food and medicines, could be freely imported to Iraq, with the exception of potential dual-use goods.

The Government has expressed its views and used its influence on every occasion, in every forum and in all our meetings and contacts to urge the need for a peaceful outcome. We have stressed that all means, short of force, must be tried and that force may be used only as a last resort. We have repeatedly called attention to the dangers entailed in military conflict. We have pointed to the threat of large-scale loss of life, casualties and human suffering. We have laid particular emphasis on humanitarian concerns. We have signalled the risk that conflict could destabilise an already volatile region. We have warned that extremists and terrorists would do all they could to exploit tensions between the Muslim world and Europe and the United States. We have spoken of the possible consequences for economic growth.

As the Taoiseach has stated, we have also been faced with the specific domestic question of whether, in the absence of a second Security Council resolution, to withdraw from the United States and its allies the right, subject to the normal conditions, to overfly our territory and to transit through Shannon Airport. In 1990-91, the then Government made it clear that the extension of overflight and landing facilities at Shannon did not give rise to any question of Ireland's declaring war or participating in a war in the Persian Gulf. Contrary to Deputy Rabbitte's assertion, that is not a spurious distinction. It is the legal position. If it were a spurious distinction, a motion would have to be considered by this House, under Article 28.3, to allow for participation in the war. That is not required because that is not the legal position, based on the conduct of the policy being pursued by the Government, which is consistent with that of previous Governments.

The Government has decided we will continue to make these facilities available, and that does not change our general police of military neutrality. Ireland will not participate in this conflict and we have undertaken no commitments in that regard. Participation would involve supplying troops, making financial commitments, perhaps establishing field hospitals and engaging in the conflict. We are not so doing. The question of overflight and landing facilities is a far more complex and difficult issue than the simple formulations offered to this House by the Opposition would suggest.

(Interruptions).

Mr. J. Higgins

Will the Minister explain—

An Ceann Comhairle

I will ask the Deputy to leave the House if he does not allow the Minister to continue without interruption. The Deputy had his opportunity to speak.

Mr. Cowen

It is clear that, in line with our traditional policy of military neutrality, Ireland could not play any direct role in military action against Iraq in the absence of a second Security Council resolution. However, it is certainly not the case, whatever may be said by Opposition spokespersons, that to maintain the granting of long-standing facilities represents a breach of our military neutrality as it has developed over time. Sixty five years ago, we adopted a policy of military neutrality in the Second World War. Fifty years ago, we started to provide landing and overflight facilities. Since then, throughout the conduct of our military neutrality policy during what opponents often refer to as the halcyon days of that policy under Mr. Aiken and others, those facilities have formed part of that policy. To withhold them now is to redefine, not maintain, the established policy position in this area.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cowen

Neutrality has been shaped by the realities of the world around us. It has been a statement of our fundamental attachment to peaceful means of resolving conflict where this is possible. In Ireland's case, it has meant non-membership of military alliances and, specifically, non-membership of an alliance with a mutual defence commitment. Neutrality does not mean, and has not meant, a complete opposition to the use of force in all cases. If it did, we could not be members of the United Nations, the charter of which provides for the use of force in certain circumstances. Nor does it mean that we are incapable of forming our own view on the merits of a situation and acting accordingly.

Facilities identical to those now being enjoyed were granted to the United States and its allies during the Kosovo conflict, despite the absence of explicit UN authorisation. There was no argument then as to whether there was sufficient mandate, as there is now between the allies and others in relation to the current conflict. This was in line with long-standing previous practice in earlier conflicts, whether UN-sanctioned. Historical research has made it increasingly clear that during the Second World War, despite the apparently exact and punctilious maintenance of a neutral stance in a much more widespread and ferocious conflict, Éamon de Valera offered practical assistance to the allies in a number of important ways. This reflected his own basic sympathies in that war but, equally importantly, it also reflected his careful assessment of what was in Ireland's national interest.

For us now to withdraw facilities from the United States would be a departure from existing arrangements. It is factually and logically incorrect for Opposition spokespersons to suggest that the Government motion represents a departure from established policy. It is a reiteration of existing and long-established policy. The proposition that we withdraw facilities in these circumstances is a new departure from the established policy rather than a maintenance of existing policy. In that regard, some Opposition contributions today have done severe damage to the English language.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is the Minister who is causing damage.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Higgins, please allow the Minister to continue.

Mr. Cowen

Whatever view we may take of the course that has led the United States, Britain and others to this point, it is surely beyond doubt that, once battle begins, we must hope for their quick and decisive victory over a brutal and savage dictatorship, with minimum loss of life. I know that other European neutrals – Sweden, Finland and Austria – are not allowing additional facilities. However, none of those countries is in the same situation as Ireland. With its very extensive airspace, Ireland lies on the direct flight path between North America and Europe and the Middle East.

Mr. J. Higgins

So what?

Mr. Cowen

That is the reason the current arrangements have evolved. Those long-standing arrangements have been deemed consistent with the conduct of our military neutrality policy throughout that period under successive Governments. Sweden and Finland are remote from such flight paths and Austria is easily circumnavigated.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Cowen

The most severe critics of American policy, France and Germany, are continuing to make their airspace and other facilities available. Regardless of inconsistent attempts by the Opposition to draw comparisons with NATO, no claim has been made that France and Germany are participating in a war. Yet, the provision of landing, refuelling and overflight facilities are being made available by those Governments, as in this country.

Dr. Cowley

I have a petition with 2,000 signatures from Westport—

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cowley, please.

Mr. Cowen

Yet, we are accused of participating in a war while Opposition speakers refuse to attribute that description to France and Germany, who are doing precisely the same as Ireland.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Cowen

Clearly, when some elements of the Opposition are shown the inconsistency of their position and their attempt to redefine established policy, they are unable to take it.

I am profoundly saddened that we have arrived at this point. Everything I said and did over recent months had a single purpose, to promote a multilateral solution and bolster the resolve of the Security Council to face up to its responsibilities. Having arrived at this point, hard choices must be made. That is the responsibility of Government, a heavy responsibility we must discharge with the utmost seriousness. We have to weigh all the concerns, the deep attachment to neutrality that Irish people have, how to define neutrality in a very complex set of circumstances, the value of international friendships, the expectations that come with these friendships and the implications there may be for the material well being of our people. All those concerns are legitimate. There have been some cheap shots during this debate to the effect that the Government should, in some way, "take into account" the economic interests and material well being of our own people in the short, medium and long-term in the context of this situation. What self-respecting Government from the other side of the House would ignore those considerations in a similar situation? If it did, it would not be a Government worthy of the name.

We hope that the humanitarian consequences of the conflict will be limited. Those participating in the military operation have a duty under international humanitarian law to ensure that they are minimised.

Dr. Cowley

We do not want Shannon used.

A Deputy

What about Knock?

Mr. Cowen

The implications and consequences of our ties with the United States are deep and long-enduring. As everyone in this House knows, they are founded on human and family bonds, celebrated yet again over the past week. The United States has been a haven and a beacon of light for millions of Irish people over the years. The importance of our economic connections in supporting directly and indirectly hundreds and thousands of Irish jobs is manifest and the United States continues to be a staunch friend in the pursuit of lasting peace in Northern Ireland. This support from the US has come from all parties as well as from Capitol Hill and civil society.

For many of the same reasons, our relationship with the United Kingdom and our appreciation of the particular personal role played by the Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, are immensely significant. We have no bilateral relationships more important than those with Britain and the United States. For us now to withdraw facilities at Shannon would not only be in direct contrast to what we have done on previous occasions, but would antagonise two of our most important friends and partners.

The core of our neutrality—

Mr. Gormley

Which does not exist.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Cowen

The core of our neutrality lies in independence of judgment and in being able to make up our minds about what is right for Ireland.

Dr. Cowley

It is complicity.

Mr. Cowen

That is the question facing all of us in the House today. Faced with the hard choice we must make, the Government believes that it is right both in terms of our principles—

Mr. Gormley

The Government has no principles.

Mr. Cowen

—and our interests to take the decision we have laid before the House. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is shameful.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Tá

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Breen, James.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Hoctor, Máire.Keaveney, Cecilia.

Kelleher, Billy.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McEllistrim, Thomas.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Blaney, Niall.Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.

Fox, Mildred.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Kehoe, Paul.Kenny, Enda.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McHugh, Paddy.

Níl–continued

McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.

Penrose, Willie.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

As amendment No. 8 was defeated, amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 fall, as they all propose to delete, in part, the same words.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I move amendment No. 4:

In the second line of the first paragraph, before "guarantor" to insert "sole".

This amendment has been corrected in a further circular today.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I move amendment No. 5:

In the fourth line of the first paragraph, before "appropriate" to insert "only".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I move amendment No. 6:

After the first paragraph to insert the following:

"–Calls on all states in possession of weapons of mass destruction to put them verifiably beyond use;

–Condemns the deplorable human rights record of the Hussein regime in Iraq, and supports self-determination for the Kurdish people;".

Deputies

Tá. Agreed.

(Interruptions).

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Has the Ceann Comhairle any control over the Government benches?

An Ceann Comhairle

Ciúnas. It is only necessary to formally move the amendment, it is not necessary to read out its wording.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Is it possible that the Ceann Comhairle might seek some co-operation from the Government benches?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not usual to read the amendment.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I suggest that if those bellowed responses came from the Opposition benches, the Ceann Comhairle would hit the gavel quickly.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Cowen

The Deputy needs a sense of humour transplant.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I do not think this is a matter for humour.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is dealing with a point of disorder. I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to withdraw the reflection on the impartiality of the Chair.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I withdraw the remark. I will conclude the second part of the amendment which is equally important.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not necessary to read out the amendment.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I hope it is as enthusiastically received by the Taoiseach and his colleagues. The second part of the amendment reads "–condemns the deplorable human rights record of the Hussein regime in Iraq, and supports self-determination for the Kurdish people;".

Amendment put.

Tá

Connolly, Paudge.Cowley, Jerry.Crowe, Seán.Ferris, Martin.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.

Higgins, Joe.McGrath, Finian.Morgan, Arthur.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Fox, Mildred.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.

Hoctor, Máire.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McEllistrim, Thomas.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Gregory; Níl, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher.

Amendment declared lost.

Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."

Tá

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Breen, James.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.

Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy. Ellis, John.

Tá–continued

Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Hoctor, Máire.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McEllistrim, Thomas.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.

Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Blaney, Niall.Boyle, Dan.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Fox, Mildred.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Kehoe, Paul.

Kenny, Enda.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McHugh, Paddy.Mitchell, Gay.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Shea, Brian.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.

Question declared carried.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 March 2003.