Joe Higgins
Question:49 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his contacts with representatives of the United States Government in 2003 on the use of Shannon Airport by US military aircraft. [10176/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Shannon Airport Facilities.
The arrangements whereby US military and civilian aircraft may refuel at Shannon have arisen at a number of meetings with representatives of the US Government since the beginning of the year. President Bush expressed appreciation for the Shannon facilities when he met the Taoiseach in Washington in March and he repeated this in Hillsborough yesterday. Secretary of State Mr. Powell and Ambassador Mr. Richard Haass, the US Administration's Special Representative for Northern Ireland, have both expressed their thanks in recent meetings with me.
In view of Ireland's geographic location on the main flight path between North America and Europe, US aircraft for many decades have found Shannon a convenient location to touch down in Ireland. Following my meeting with the Ambassador Mr. Haass in February, he commented that the use of Shannon was particularly appreciated by the US because of its capacity and location.
Officials of my Department maintain regular contact with the United States Embassy on a range of issues, including in relation to the use of Shannon. In January of this year, for instance, it was pointed out to the US authorities that the civilian charter airlines carrying US troops were obliged to seek the permission of the Minister of Transport to carry weapons, and ammunition connected with those weapons. Also, following discussion between my Department and the US Embassy in January, the embassy sought, and was granted, ministerial permission to wear duty uniform in the "immediate vicinity of an arrival/departure area". Any requests for exceptions to this policy have to be submitted to my Department.
Does the Minister feel embarrassed and compromised that President Bush thanks him and the Government for facilitating the criminal invasion of Iraq, which in three weeks has had such devastating consequences for innocent Iraqi civilians and generally for that country? Does he agree that appealing to a 50 year precedent and the fact that this facility was available during the equally criminal invasion of Vietnam is not a moral justification for continuing something?
Were specific discussions requested by the United States Government with the Minister before the invasion was launched to tell him that the invasion was going to be launched and to seek the consent of the Government that the facilities would continue in what was an entirely new situation? Whereas the Government argued that before the invasion the facilities could be justified under Resolution 1441, once the invasion began that argument could no longer apply because the Government said that a second resolution was necessary and, hence, the invasion had no legal authority. If the United States Government was so arrogant that it thought it could continue to use this State to progress its invasion, why did the Government not seek immediate meetings with it in order to object to the imperial venture that it was about to undertake and to threaten to withdraw the facilities?
Is that the end of the Deputy's question? As I outlined here previously, the decision the Government took on this matter was consistent with our foreign policy traditions and with the exercise of our military neutrality policy since it was initiated. That is entirely consistent with previous Government positions. Despite the Deputy's invective, I do not feel embarrassed. I am very proud to be a member of this Government, to be Minister for Foreign Affairs, to have the mandate of the people and to make decisions in the interests of the Irish people.
The premise of the Deputy's argument suggests that it has been accepted in all circumstances that this has been an illegal action, a criminal invasion of Iraq and that we facilitated it. Successive Attorneys General advice has confirmed that we are not participating in this action. We are providing for the continuation of these facilities, as was the case in the past, which is entirely consistent with the policy.
I put it to the Minister that if he is not embarrassed, a large majority of the Irish people are embarrassed that the Government would facilitate this invasion. It is a duplicity on the part of the Government to deny any involvement. To refer to an analogy I made previously, if the people who came to plant the Dublin and Monaghan bombs were facilitated at a petrol station along the way with the knowledge of the petrol station owner as to what they were doing and where they were going, would the Government say that person had nothing to do with it? Under our law, would that person not be aiding and abetting and subject probably to the same charges of mass murder as those who left the car? What is the difference in facilitating bombers to blow children, women and men to bits as we saw in recent days?
Now that the United States army of occupation is in Baghdad it is the intention of the Government to continue to facilitate the maintenance of that occupation? Lest we forget, this was a war allegedly to hunt down weapons of mass destruction? If the Minister woke up tomorrow morning not having known the details of the conflict and he heard that one side had killed 120 soldiers of the other side and had killed 20 to 30 times that number in civilians and conscripts, who would the Minister guess had the weapons of most destruction? Where are the weapons of mass destruction, the poison gas, the chemicals that was allegedly a threat to the United States and Britain?
The nuclear bomb.
Where are they? How, therefore, can the Irish Government feel justified in continuing to give these facilities to what is quite clearly a criminal invasion for oil and imperial control of the Middle East?
Once again I find the Deputy's analogies crass and insulting.
Will the Minister explain that?
They are the facts.
I do find them insulting.
Will the Minister explain—
I will answer the question, however inappropriate some aspects of it are. In relation the question of weapons of mass destruction, we hope that whatever capacity is there is found. I am not so sure that we were supposed to find them by the end of 8 or 9 April. I did not know that was the requirement.
There would be some situation if we had a dictator who subjected his own people to fear and impoverishment to control them and did not have weapons of mass destruction but used a sanction regime to control his own people for the past 12 years. That would be a pretty despicable act. Rather than getting involved in conjecture, we are in a situation where the conflict has not even ended yet. We have to await the outcome and see what develops. I make clear that the view of the Government is to do all we can to help with the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and to provide for representative government in Iraq as soon as possible.