Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the finalised programme for his visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6613/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the final agenda for his visit to the United States in March 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7295/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the President of the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7475/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the United States Administration. [7476/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his priorities for his St. Patrick's Day visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7478/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his official visit to the United States. [7957/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached during his meeting with President Bush of the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7958/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7967/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7968/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7969/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total cost of his recent visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7970/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed at his recent meeting in Washington with President Bush, especially in relation to Iraq; the commitments or undertakings which were given in regard to the use by US forces of facilities at Shannon Airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8025/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with political leaders during the course of his St. Patrick's Day visit to the United States. [8026/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his address to the World Bank during his recent official visit to the United States. [8028/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:15 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the United States. [8075/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:16 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the US President and the matters discussed. [8077/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent conversation in Washington with President Bush and the Bush Administration on the Iraq crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8105/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:18 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the issues discussed during his recent meeting in the United States with the World Bank president, Mr. James Wolfensohn; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8107/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:19 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the issues addressed in his World Bank's president lecture in Washington; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8108/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:20 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the President of the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8987/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:21 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the assurances he gave the President of the United States as regards over-flights and the use of refuelling facilities at Irish airports for the duration of the current war in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8988/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:22 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Ireland America Advisory Board. [8989/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:23 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the President of the World Bank, Mr. James Wolfensohn; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8990/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 23, inclusive, together.
The primary focus of my visit to the US was on Northern Ireland matters and this was reflected by the fact that Northern Ireland civic and political leaders were invited to the White House. Given the significance of the talks at Hillsborough and the proposals prepared by the Governments, it was important to ensure that President Bush, his Administration and our friends in Congress and the Senate are fully up-to-date on developments and are supportive of our efforts to secure a lasting peace in Northern Ireland with the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Accordingly, over the St. Patrick's Day period in Washington, I took the opportunity to fully brief President Bush, Ambassador Haass and our friends in Congress on the outcome of recent discussions. We also discussed the situation regarding Iraq, which we debated in the House the week before last.
I am extremely grateful for the continued support of the US Administration, Senate and Congress for our efforts in relation to Northern Ireland at this time and I know that we will receive strong encouragement from President Bush and our US friends to successfully and comprehensively finish the job. At this point, I cannot say when I will next meet President Bush.
During my visit to Washington, at the invitation of president Jim Wolfensohn, I addressed the World Bank. In the course of my address, which was mainly concerned with Ireland's recent economic progress, I also referred to our overseas development aid programme and matters relevant to developing countries, including HIV-Aids and Third World debt.
During my visit, I also took the opportunity to meet with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board. I reported to the board on recent developments in relation to Northern Ireland and we discussed the international situation, in particular, the prospects of a recovery in the US economy. The total cost of the visit is not yet available.
In respect of the reply the Taoiseach gave in the Dáil last week, has the Government explained in detail and given all of the information in regard to the blueprint for the completion of the Good Friday Agreement to all of the parties in Northern Ireland? Is it his understanding that these parties have sufficient time to consider those details, to put them to their respective supporters in time for the elections to be called and to get on with their business?
Last weekend at its Ard-Fheis in Dublin, Sinn Féin seemed to indicate through its president, Gerry Adams, that it was not yet ready to join the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Is this not a setback for the completion of the process at what is a fragile time in the run-up to this matter being completed?
Has a date been fixed for the presentation of the final Bill by the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that there will be a complete response from all the parties to this, in order to allow the elections to take place, as was the intention, to let the people of the North have their decision in respect of the parties presenting themselves?
In reply to Deputy Kenny's first question, as to whether everybody has all the information on the presentations, as far as I am concerned, they have. I cannot vouch that the smaller parties have all been briefed on the full detail but I think they have the overall general position. I have personally gone through it with the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin and I think that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Secretary of State have also been talking to those parties and other parties as well. I believe that everybody has the position and I have been endeavouring for several weeks to make absolutely sure that there are no ambiguities or misunderstandings. People have been shown the text of the documents and brought through them. Right up until yesterday, we have been engaged in both clarifying and explaining the positions and trying to work through them. Obviously we have not been changing them because that brings one back to the whole round again. We have been trying as best we can and wherever we can to explain them satisfactorily or if there is something we feel we can change in regard to how something is presented we have gone back. I have gone back to the parties over the weekend trying to get agreement.
The position in regard to what was said by the president of Sinn Féin at the weekend is different to what I said last week. It is a different position. As I heard it, the public presentation was not as I understood it. I am still hoping that is not the way it will end up, but if it is, it is different than I understood it. I just want to make clear what I meant. I understood that as part of this, we would move towards a completion of the policing issue in a shorter timeframe than the president of Sinn Féin outlined. I argued last week for policing in Northern Ireland to change and move on. The Bill currently going through Westminster brings us back very close to the Patten proposals.
I know there are outstanding issues, and we have tried to address those in the current round of talks. My concern is that if the policing issue continues to be drawn out over a longer timeframe, it will create risks. In moving towards fundamental reform of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the sooner we have a higher proportion of Nationalists and republicans joining the force, the better. That will boost the reform process and help to establish respect, trust and confidence in the force. The talks are not complete. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, myself, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the British Government are endeavouring to do the best we can. Despite his other difficulties, Prime Minister Tony Blair has devoted a considerable amount of time to this issue in recent days and has been in contact with us directly or indirectly every day for the past week. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve the outstanding issues.
Our intention is still to present our plan within the next fortnight. The date is not fixed. My preference is for next week. The Assembly is currently suspended but must be dissolved by 28 April to allow elections to take place at the end of May. If we leave it any later than next week to present the plan, it leaves too narrow a period between that and the dissolution. I will continue to interact with the relevant parties to try to explain our positions and advance towards as full an agreement as possible. If a full agreement is arrived at, the pro-Agreement parties can go to the electorate with a very clear message based on what they have done and achieved. There have been difficulties, but the parties could also present a very good blueprint for the future. Without this, the parties will obviously still have to go to the electorate, but they will have a lot of difficulties explaining their position, and I would have difficulty doing it for them.
Everybody in the House shares the Taoiseach's wish that a plan can be presented and implemented. However, the president of Sinn Féin has publicly announced that he has difficulty with some aspects of the details explained to him by both the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. Has the Government indicated to its officials that this confusion should be discussed with the Sinn Féin president so that all the details which have already been clearly outlined are fully understood by everybody? Can we take it from the Taoiseach that no further concessions will be granted? This matter has been raised on many occasions over the past number of years, and we are now at a point where all concessions that are going to be given have been given. Can we take it as an absolute that no further concessions will be given to any party and that the text of an agreement is practically finalised?
On another matter, the Taoiseach took the opportunity to address the World Bank in Washington recently. He argued that the International Monetary Fund should not use poorer countries as laboratories for the development of economic theories originating in the comfort of offices in Washington. That is a laudable sentiment. I ask the Taoiseach to indicate what Ireland's overseas aid budget is this year. Is it true that it has been cut by €40 million?
On policing, there are issues on which Sinn Féin, the UUP and others are still seeking clarification and explanations. That is fair enough. I will continue to hold discussions with the parties right up to the point where we present our proposals. I have no difficulty with that. I have spent an enormous amount of time doing this already and will continue to do so as will my officials. Deputy Ó Caoláin will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think there is confusion on the part of Sinn Féin. My preference is that we finalise the policing issue as part of this deal and move on within a shorter time frame. The president of Sinn Féin is not saying that he will not sign up to this in the long term but that he will not do so in the short term. That is his stated position. I cannot force people to agree to my preference. There are various other things I would like the Unionists to agree to which are not yet signed off. We will continue to try to achieve progress.
The suggestion contained in Deputy Kenny's question is correct. If one spends a long period of negotiating several different issues, it is better to try to tie them all down together. I have argued this with the British Government over demilitarisation, argued with the Unionists over declaring their position on devolved policing and argued with Sinn Féin on other aspects of the process. It is better to tackle the key issues. Most people in Northern Ireland see these issues as very important, but, as I see it, they are somewhat exhausted by the inability of all parties to arrive at conclusions. They criticise me, criticise Tony Blair and criticise the pro-Agreement parties for not tying down these issues.
If we do not achieve certainty on all the key issues, it creates difficulty. Deputy Kenny and Deputy Rabbitte have met groups from Northern Ireland and will know that as soon as one group declares an unwillingness to conclude one aspect of a deal, another party will then withdraw consent from another aspect. This creates a merry-go-round effect. I will go on with the merry-go-round, but my concern is for the people of Northern Ireland. It is far better to try to tie the issues down and achieve completion. It was not today or yesterday that we spelled out exactly what that means. Tony Blair and I spelled out the position of our respective Governments in mid-October 2002. Those positions have not changed, nor have the issues. To go into an election without that kind of certainty and clarity would have its downsides, to put it mildly. I would rather exhaust myself over the next week than have to continue with this process for the next six months. My view is that would be a mistake although others may take a different view.
Deputy Kenny also asked about overseas development aid. The Government is maintaining the percentage of national resources it devotes to overseas development aid. We are one of only five countries to do so. Even in a difficult year, we have committed, I think, 0.46% of GDP to aid, although I am open to correction on that. We are in a very good position, and that is why I had the opportunity, on behalf of the Irish people, of addressing the World Bank. I would not have had that opportunity but for the Irish people. Ireland is held in very high regard by the staff of the World Bank for the work it has done and the work that Irish NGOs, both lay and religious, carry out on the ground.
The point I made, which the Deputy picked up, was that going into African countries with economic theory on how they will resolve these issues, as set out in some of the grandiose documents at which I have looked, is nonsense. They have no opportunity and are not able to do what is requested of them. I think the Deputy knows where I stand. I have made many speeches over the years, including when I was Minister for Labour, about what should happen in developing countries, writing off debt and HIV-AIDS, and I took the opportunity to set out our position on those issues.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about his visit to Washington. Before he left he told us that the Government's position on the invasion of Iraq was different from that of the Bush Administration. Does he still hold that view? Did he take the opportunity to ask the President whether the attack on Iraq really is a war on terrorism? Did a discussion take place on the widely held view that this attack could spawn further terrorism? We already see suicide bombers in Iraq. Will the Taoiseach elaborate on his statement that if Ireland is to withdraw facilities at Shannon, we would be the only country in the free world to do so? Did he forget about Austria and Switzerland when he made that statement or does he regard those countries as being outside the free world?
Many people would agree with the Taoiseach's World Bank speech in which he said that developing countries should be given more opportunities to trade. Does the Government support debt cancellation for poorer countries? Does it support the evaluation of the social and environmental impact of all quota and tariff regimes regulating agricultural trade with non-EU members? On market access policies, does the Taoiseach agree with discriminating in favour of more sustainable production methods, such as fair trade products? Is that what he meant when he spoke about more opportunities to trade or did he have other ideas in mind?
I will take the questions in reverse order. I am in favour of debt cancellation. When I was Minister for Finance I gave a fairly substantial amount from our budget towards the initiative in 1993. Within ECOFIN and the European Council, I have supported the initiatives since then. In regard to sustainable development, alternative agricultural production and assisting agriculture, I recently saw a presentation on the work of Trócaire. I support any other way we can assist these countries. There is an enormous amount we can do and this country has been very good in that regard through the development programmes of Teagasc, the State agency, and Trócaire.
My discussions with President Bush lasted for about two and a half hours, 25 minutes of which went towards discussing issues with President Bush, Colin Powell and Richard Haass and the remainder was devoted to Northern Ireland. We discussed Iraq, North Korea, the Middle East and the HIV-AIDS initiative. That day and the following day, three or four days before the Azores meeting, diplomatic efforts were still being made to try to agree a resolution at the UN on Iraq. I, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, our ambassador and key officials, took the opportunity to outline our thinking and out position in regard to the UN, of which the President and particularly Colin Powell were very much aware. They appreciated our work, certainly until new year's eve when we were on the Security Council.
I outlined to the President how we saw things, particularly the difficulties in the Middle East and what has happened there in the past two or three years. His support for the Sharon Administration, which is very much against the Palestinians, is not helpful to the overall position. I have held that view for a number of years and I had that same debate with President Clinton. The situation with this Administration is even more difficult because it has taken a position on the security of Israel, which I understand – nobody wants to see the security of the Israeli people affected. However, it is not a secret that President Bush is not a friend of Yasser Arafat. As the Deputy will know, I have had continuous contact with President Arafat. I detected that day that President Bush would move on with the new Administration which will be put in place shortly. He sees a lot of opportunities to do business and I hope that will assist the position in the Middle East. I made probably my strongest pitch on the Middle East because it is feeding into the problems in this area.
The Taoiseach said diplomatic efforts were still under way in regard to Iraq when he met President Bush. I knew at that stage and for some time before, as I am sure did the Taoiseach, that the United States would invade. Did the Taoiseach tell President Bush that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal in his terms, a criminal venture, and should not be carried out? Will he give me a straight answer to that question? Did he tell him the views of the Irish people on an invasion and about the 100,000 plus people who marched in Dublin in opposition to his policies? Does the Taoiseach regret presenting President Bush with a bowl of shamrock, a symbol for the Irish people, in view of the atrocities for which his forces have been responsible since? I ask the Taoiseach not to lecture me on Saddam Hussein because he did not bring him shamrock on this occasion, although some of his colleagues might have brought him some in the 1980s for all we know.
Did the Taoiseach discuss with President Bush or any other responsible person, or irresponsible in view of what has happened since, the question of this country facilitating troops going through Shannon on their way to Iraq, overflights of US military aircraft or any other such details? Is it conceivable that the Taoiseach, as leader of this country, could go to the United States and not discuss those issues with senior people in the US Administration in view of what was about to unfold?
To give the Deputy a straight answer, I outlined to President Bush the Irish views and the concerns of people here. I informed the President of the Irish view that we would like, more than anything else, a second UN resolution. I did not tell him the war was illegal but outlined the difference of opinion in terms of a second UN resolution. I told him we wanted a second resolution so he was aware of our position. I am not sorry I met the President of the United States. I respect him and his Administration. I am not apologetic for presenting the shamrock on behalf of the Irish people.
President Bush acknowledged that Ireland had been of assistance by allowing landing and overflights. He understood this was creating controversy and was aware that three of the four carriers of US troops had already ceased stopping in Ireland. I did not go into any great detail on this and the President did not press me in any way to continue with our position.
So, he thanked the Taoiseach for his assistance in the war.
He thanked us for allowing the United States overflights and landing facilities.
To facilitate his invasion of Iraq.
It is a facility that has been there since 1955 and he is aware of that position. I did not get into the detail but the President acknowledged that we had not withdrawn that facility.
The President was thanking the Taoiseach for assisting him in his war on Iraq.
No, he did not thank me for assisting in the war.
Yes, he did.
Deputy Higgins, please.
He acknowledged that the overflight arrangements in Shannon are still in place. That is not the same thing in Irish law or in international law, and Deputy Joe Higgins knows that.
So, the President did not thank the Taoiseach for his assistance. Did he refuse to thank the Taoiseach?
It was virtual assistance.
On that point, are there any circumstances in which the Government will withdraw facilities at Shannon? What was the US President's response when the Taoiseach told him the Irish Government view that the US President's partisan support for Sharon is at the heart of what is generating the problem in the Middle East?
It is unfortunate that we must jumble the important international question of Iraq with the Northern Ireland situation in today's questions which are taken together. With regard to the Taoiseach's earlier reply to Deputy Kenny, did I understand correctly that, on policing, following the Sinn Féin Ard Fhéis, the Taoiseach is resigned to the fact that Sinn Féin may postpone its participation on the policing board? Is the Taoiseach saying to the House that the agreement which is, I hope, in prospect can proceed irrespective of the timing of Sinn Féin participation on the policing board? Is it correct that if, at the beginning of the life of a new Assembly, Sinn Féin has not taken up its positions on the board, it will be excluded thereafter? Can that be reviewed at a later stage to facilitate Sinn Féin involvement?
The Deputy asked about a possible change in our position on Shannon. One can never say "never" on such issues but I do not foresee any change at present. I hope this war will end in the short term. If it does not, circumstances can change but I do not envisage any change at this stage.
The President's view on the Middle East has switched somewhat in recent months. When I spoke to him last year on this issue, it was quite clear that the US Administration was not going to overly involve itself and it did not. It is now prepared to make more effort and to move on the road map. From my interpretation of my meeting with the President I do not believe the road map will produce results as quickly as many people think it will. However, I noted a different opinion from that of the President one year ago and a radically different opinion from that of two years ago, when I did not notice much sympathy. The President made the point strongly to me that he is now the first US President to call for two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side. That is now his formal position and is a sign of progress as it was not a position taken by previous US Presidents. The road map pushes out the parameters. The Prime Minister Mr. Blair and others are very anxious to move on it, and it can happen. I still take the view that if Mr. Sharon believes he is well protected, he will not move. The Americans will have to lean harder on him.
I am concerned that the pace of this process will be slow. There is a view internationally that until the new Administration is in and given a chance, people will not move. That seems to be the view of the UN, the EU and the US President. Perhaps, it will work out but I would like to see quicker movement with regard to the road map.
On Northern Ireland, I have not given up and am not resigned to the situation there. However, I can understand that people have difficulties. If the President of Sinn Féin outlined to his Ard Fhéis that he saw the time scale differently to the way I would like him to see it, I will have to live with that position. That does not end anything but it would have been better to move on this, which would have increased confidence and progress.
The suggestion that Sinn Féin could come in at a later stage is not a real difficulty. The difficulties are in related areas. If somebody does not act on one aspect, somebody else will raise another aspect and there is a knock-on effect, which I fear. I took the opportunity to meet some of the other leaders over the weekend, including the SDLP and Mr. Trimble who came in yesterday, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has been in contact with some others.
From our perspective in dealing with these issues in the fairest and best way, if all parties move together that would be best but, if that is not possible, we will have to try to do it in a slightly different way to accommodate that. Ultimately, it is important that Sinn Féin participates, plays an active role on the policing boards, encourages young Nationalists to join the new police service in Northern Ireland and that the party will play a significant role in the reform and enhancement of the police service. It would be better to start that now, but if it has to be later, we will have to deal with that.
I went through the list of today's questions to the Taoiseach and wondered about their focus. Nowhere do I note a reference to the Sinn Féin Ard Fhéis.
We, in Sinn Féin, are wholly committed to the peaceful resolution of conflict both domestically and internationally, as the Taoiseach knows and will, perhaps, confirm. While I found it odd that Deputy Rabbitte suggested the possible exclusion of Sinn Féin from the policing boards before we have taken a decision one way or the other in regard to the detail of that, my party will address that matter, as has been confirmed by my party president-—
I remind the Deputy that this is question time to the Taoiseach.
I would be most grateful if all these questions would address the questions to the Taoiseach so that I would not be placed in the invidious position of having to listen while not being able to respond.
To deal with Questions Nos. 16 and 17, which I have tabled, I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that this US Administration and its predecessor have played a constructive part in the Irish peace process. Does the Taoiseach agree that it demeans the peace process and the Irish people to suggest that the Government should not strongly oppose the US-UK war on Iraq? Does he agree that it is wrong that Ireland should abandon its neutrality and independent foreign policy on the grounds that to do otherwise might offend the US President, Mr. Bush? Does he reject, as I do, the outrageous notion that we should trade war in Iraq for peace in Ireland? I have read such comments, which should be rejected, in the print media and I have heard the echoes of them elsewhere. I hope the Taoiseach will join me in rejecting such arguments. Is it not the case that Irish people, as true friends of the people of the United States, have a duty – we owe it to them – to state honestly our views in relation to the war in Iraq? The view of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people, which has been demonstrated on many occasions, is one that we sincerely—
The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech.
No, I am asking the Taoiseach if he agrees—
The Deputy is not asking the Taoiseach anything; he is giving his own opinions.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he agrees with my views, which I am outlining.
It is not appropriate to keep asking a lot of questions about whether the Taoiseach agrees with the Deputy. The Deputy has been framing a Second Stage speech in the form of questions. He should ask the Taoiseach questions.
I am asking the Taoiseach questions.
The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information.
It is very odd and very strange, a Cheann Comhairle, with respect, that others can use certain mechanisms of asking questions, but when it comes to this Deputy and this particular focus, you seem to find it objectionable.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.
The Chair has some local knowledge.
The Chair is objecting to the style I am using.
I am not objecting to that.
You have not objected when the same style has been used by others.
I am objecting to the length of time the Deputy is taking to ask his questions. He has cast a reflection on the Chair—
I do not intend to do that.
—and I ask him to withdraw that remark.
I withdraw it.
The Deputy should ask the Taoiseach a question.
Does the Taoiseach agree with me that the proper and courageous position which should be adopted by the Government would be to state honestly to the people of the United States that it is in their interests, the interests of Ireland and the interests of a peaceful resolution of conflict that these problems be addressed by different means? Is a friend not someone who tells one the truth? If this country wants to be a friend to the United States, the Government should represent exactly what the people of Ireland believe and have articulated time and time again.
The Deputy is making a statement again.
I will ask the Taoiseach a final question and I ask him to give a straight answer to it. Can he tell the House if he agrees that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq is morally wrong and illegal under international law?
The Deputy asked a question at the end of his contribution, although I am not so sure about some of his earlier comments. I cannot determine whether the war is illegal. Only two bodies can determine whether it is illegal – the United Nations and an international legal body. The resolution of the legal uncertainty which has existed in relation to the situation for many months rests with the two bodies. I cannot say whether the war is legal or illegal. That has been the position since 8 November last. People were frustrated by the amount of times that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I pointed out the difficulties that would arise from that. We have said all along that the difficulties will continue, which is why we said that Resolution 1441 is a good resolution which reflected many of the other issues but it did not answer the other two resolutions that people have used to justify it.
The Deputy also asked a clear question about whether there is a trade-off between the war in Iraq and the peace process. Nobody has taken such a position during the discussions I have attended. I know that Deputy Ó Caoláin does not like to hear this, but I repeat that I do not consider that we have changed our position in relation to neutrality nor do I think we have changed our independence or deviated one iota from it. I have held the UN position to a far greater extent that many other people. I have argued that position with my EU colleagues and I expressed that point of view to the President, although I would not say that I argued with him. Ireland has faithfully stood with the UN throughout this process.
In so far as the landing and stopover facilities are helpful to the United States, they are helpful to the United States. If we had not offered the facilities, the US would have gone elsewhere. I have been asked whether the assistance counts as a friendly act, but legally, Ireland is not participating in the war. That is the international, domestic and legal position. That is the advice we have received.
Has the Government upheld the Irish position?
It is the Irish position. The US could have made alternative arrangements within an hour or two, as it did when aeroplanes were attacked in January. I invite Deputy Ó Caoláin to assess the potential perception of a withdrawal of facilities among Irish-Americans. As Minister for Labour at a time when 18.8% of people were unemployed, I answered questions and was criticised in this House. I was asked how I could justify being part of an Administration at a time when a net total of 60,000 people had gone to the United States. Some 50,000 people had gone from this country to the US five years in a row. I would not feel comfortable about saying to the 44 million Americans who claim to have an Irish heritage that this country is prepared to be totally difficult in a difficult situation. It is very easy to take an easy option. The Government has taken a certain point of view, which I share.
The Taoiseach can be assured that the 44 million do not support the war in Iraq.
That is not the point.
We must conclude Taoiseach's Question Time.
The President's ratings are 86%, but that is not the point. I do not hold the view that the facts I have mentioned should not have mattered when the Government was making its decision.