Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 2003

Vol. 565 No. 1

Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Foreign Conflicts.

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

48 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, on behalf of the Government and in view of the catastrophic consequences of the continuation of a war in Iraq, he will instruct Ireland's permanent representative at the United Nations to initiate a uniting for peace initiative in accordance with Resolution 377 of 3 February 2003 - Chapter V - to call an emergency session of the General Assembly to discuss the grave situation into which the world has been plunged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10316/03]

Mr. Cowen

The Government's understanding is that the Arab group at the UN, following a meeting of the non-aligned movement's co-ordinating bureau, has decided to raise the matter in the General Assembly. It appears that they propose to take this course of action rather than invoking the procedure established by General Assembly Resolution 377 of 3 November 1950. It is our understanding that there is no consensus among the non-aligned movement on whether to proceed with an initiative under Resolution 377. In the absence of such a consensus, any initiative by other parties would be unlikely to garner sufficient support to have a substantial impact on the current crisis.

The Government takes the view that in the current crisis, it is important that any measures taken in the United Nations, or other international fora, should hold the real prospect both of making a tangible contribution to resolving the crisis and rebuilding unity and cohesion within the United Nations.

The Government hopes for the earliest possible conclusion of the conflict with the minimum loss of life. Our priority in the United Nations now must be to minimise the humanitarian impact of the conflict. We will consider any initiative that holds out a realistic prospect of achieving that goal.

Mr. M. Higgins

I understand that on 31 March the Organisation of Islamic States made a proposal under UN Resolution 377 of 3 November 1950. I further understand that the Malaysian representative to the United Nations indicated that he would write to the Secretary General to seek a meeting of the General Assembly under Resolution 377. As the Minister has indicated in previous replies, such steps have been taken on ten previous occasions from Suez to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. In that context, and given the possibility that such a resolution may recur, was our representative at the United Nations approached concerning this matter? Was he specifically approached by the representative of the United States? Is the Minister aware that a communication has been put into the public realm concerning other states that were approached? It was suggested to them that the United States would not welcome this initiative.

Would it not be positive to have a united peace initiative to ensure that the conflict does not spread to other countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, which between them have more than 400 million Muslim citizens? The peace initiative would also serve as a barrier to the extension of the declaration of war within and beyond the Middle East.

Mr. Cowen

I am not aware of any such approach having been made to our UN representative. As I mentioned in my reply, this "united for peace" procedure has been used on approximately ten previous occasions. There was perhaps one occasion when the procedure resulted in a measure of success, which was the case of Suez. Taking the current situation, however, I am not sure to what extent declaratory debates on these matters in the United Nations would be effective, given that there is no consensus within the non-aligned movement. In any event, the proposal does not seem to have sufficient support. The Secretary General and the rest of us are trying to create a meaningful role for the United Nations in the present evolving situation. Rather than having a debate on yesterday's "what if?" agenda, which will be of interest in subsequent analyses of the situation, the pragmatic reality we are now dealing with concerns how to deal with the short-term humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The bottom line informing our policy is how we can help the Iraqi people in relation to what appears to be a tilting of the conflict to the point where the regime is certainly losing its authority, based on what we have seen happening in Baghdad today. We still do not know what further pockets of resistance exist there and we have certainly not reached the end of this conflict but we still have to deal with the humanitarian requirements of the Iraqi people in the short-term.

As the Taoiseach said when addressing these issues yesterday, we obviously have to seek a vital and central role whenever and in whatever fora we can. The Thesaurus has been exhausted as to what will be the UN's role but we want a role that will give the Iraqi people the prospect of democratic government under which the resources of the country will be used for the benefit of its people. Pending the end of the conflict, interim arrangements must be geared to bringing about such a situation as soon as possible, with the UN having a role for the purpose of legitimacy.

Mr. M. Higgins

In his reply, the Minister has wandered somewhat from the substance of the question. Of course, I agree with him that we must concentrate on the provision of humanitarian relief. It is interesting that the joint statement issued in Northern Ireland did not indicate any corridors for such relief to be delivered, nor did it indicate a role for any of the United Nations' humanitarian organisations in relation to Baghdad. Being pragmatic and realistic, the same number of people are still dependent on food as before. The children and the institutions are still dependent as before but we did not hear anything about them in the statement. We can turn to those matters in subsequent questions.

The Minister suggested that it is neither pragmatic nor realistic to speak of Resolution 377. However, that resolution of 3 November 1950, was moved in the knowledge that there was a danger that the veto would be used, thus rendering the Security Council impotent. In the current situation, the Security Council cannot, at the peril of destroying the United Nations, retrospectively regard an illegal act as being legal. Therefore, it surely behoves, if ever any circumstances did, the General Assembly to deal with the situation in which the United Nations now finds itself. The assembly should discuss the future of the region and obtain assurances that there will be no more illegal and non-authorised invasions in other jurisdictions. That would help to ease tensions in the Islamic world. I would have thought that the conditions are perfect for the "united for peace" resolution which, it is interesting to note, is supported by several other Governments as well as the Parliament of Thailand. In addition, it is supported by international women's organisations, churches and a number of countries, including some in Europe. I cannot understand what is holding Ireland back from supporting such an initiative.

Mr. Cowen

The problem is that the premise upon which Deputy Higgins pursues his argument is contended by those who are engaged in the military action. The Deputy suggests that this action is illegal and lacks a sufficient mandate but that argument is not accepted by the coalition forces which say they are acting on the basis of existing UN mandates. That is precisely the point. This is an argument that will continue to run. I am sure there will be plenty of interesting academic literature on this point as far as international legal experts and students are concerned in the immediate future and thereafter. What we must concern ourselves with is the reality on the ground as this situation evolves.

I assure the Deputy that the question of humanitarian aid was raised by the Taoiseach with the United States President and with the British Prime Minister. It has been a consistent theme of this Government's approach and it is entirely consistent with our foreign policy traditions.

As regards what we will do for the Iraqi people, their concerns are that the demise of this regime is completed as quickly as possible and that it should be replaced by a democratic, representative and properly constituted government for the people for Iraq where the resources of Iraq can be used for the benefit of Iraq. That is what the people of Iraq want. I will work with others to deal with that.

As I said in my initial reply, I question whether debates in the UN, which by their nature would be divisive, would enhance a more meaningful role for the UN, which we all seek. We must make sure in our political debate, dialogue and discussions at EU, UN and every other level and by way of bilateral contracts that the objective, with which we all agree, is brought about as quickly as possible and that the role of the UN is brought to bear on that situation in as effective and meaningful a way as is possible.

Mr. M. Higgins

Surely the opinion of the General Assembly would be important in relation to the future of the UN. If the Minister were asked a direct question by the Organisation of Islamic States or by the Non-Aligned Movement as to where Ireland stands, would he tell them that we do not favour the Uniting for Peace initiative?

Mr. Cowen

I would tell the Organisation for Islamic States that the priority being accorded by this Government at this moment is the need for humanitarian relief within Iraq. I will give consideration to any proposal from any organisation within the United Nations, but I again make the point that I question the wisdom of further debates in the United Nations at this time as we try to ensure that it is brought back centre stage into this situation.