It now appears that military activity in the war in Iraq is nearing conclusion. On Monday, the Taoiseach spoke to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, about the UN's role in respect of reconstructing and overseeing administration in post-war Iraq. The key word emanating from yesterday's meeting in Hillsborough involving President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and the Taoiseach was "vital". Given the scale of challenge facing the administrative bodies in respect of rebuilding Iraq, re-launching its currency, building a financial system from scratch and putting in place an operational judicial system leading to a point where Iraqi people can elect their own democratic government, will the Taoiseach explain to this House what is his definition of the word "vital" in regard to the UN's role? Has he reported back to Kofi Annan who he said would be well satisfied with what he had to report? What is the Taoiseach's understanding of what was agreed yesterday between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair? Will the United Nations oversee the administration and reconstruction of Iraq or will it merely be an advisory body to the office for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance which the US and Britain are offering to put in place? What is the Taoiseach's understanding of the words "vital role" in respect of the work to be carried out by the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq?
Leaders' Questions.
I spoke to the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, on Monday. I asked him how he felt matters had developed and he informed me he had spoken to the Security Council which had done preparatory work on what way it would be involved in post-war Iraq. The UN has a special role in this regard. It has special experience and expertise in some areas, although not all. Kofi Annan said the UN had to be cautious about taking on things it would not be able to do or becoming involved in areas that would over-stretch it. The UN does not have any difficulties on the humanitarian issue in which it can become fully involved. It has enormous expertise through numerous UN organisations. Resolution 1472 which was successfully passed under the German chairmanship last Friday week is already in place and allows NGOs and UN organisations to become fully involved. That is already taking place.
Kofi Annan said the issue of political facilitation leading to the emergence of a new or interim administration is another area in which the UN has considerable expertise. He feels the best way to do this would be to adhere to the Afghanistan model where a UN nominee is involved. The UN has worked in partnership with many countries involved in Afghanistan. That is the preferred position. The UN does not wish to take over the entire operation on day one because it does not think that is feasible. It wants to work in partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom. The UN is, this week, working on the reconstruction programme and looking at what would be involved in setting up an administration which would include Iraqis from inside and outside with some assistance in the early stages. The reconstruction and normalisation of Iraq is a huge task. The UN must move from the oil for food programme to normality and it has the required expertise in this area which others do not have.
I relayed that information to President Bush yesterday. Events were already moving on because the Secretary General, at the request of the President, had already announced Mr. Rafeeuddin Ahmed as the UN special envoy in this area and he commenced work last night with the Americans and the British. It is hoped, according to the last call I received late last night, that Kofi Annan will meet Prime Minister Blair in London tomorrow morning. The timing may change but that meeting should take place within the next 24 hours.
Did the US President agree with what the Taoiseach relayed to him, following his conversation with Kofi Annan, that a nominee of the United Nations would work in partnership with the office for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance? Did President Bush say he was happy with that version of Kofi Annan's preference? Given the conflicting signs coming from President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, were the claims that this war was about oil raised with them? Was the issue raised that nothing should be done in terms of strategy for the use of oil resources in Iraq until such time as a democratic government elected by the Iraqi people is put in place? Was that point central to any of the discussions the Taoiseach had yesterday with the US President and the British Prime Minister? That claim has been made internationally and it would be important that in the overseeing of the administration and rebuilding of Iraq, that central issue should not be violated in any way.
I had an opportunity yesterday to meet Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush for an hour. I told them what people were saying in this country and others. It is not my view, but I thought it was an opportunity for me to put the case and I put it straight to them that people said this war was about oil, power, influence in the region—
Does the Taoiseach think they would admit that?
—and trying to gain influence on Syria and Iran and the relationship with Saudi Arabia. I put all of the points to them because I had an opportunity to do so. President Bush robustly defends the position that the only thing the war is about is trying to give a future of liberation to the Iraqi people. He said the oil revenues will be for the Iraqi people and the development of Iraq and he looks forward to proving wrong those who are sceptical about his intentions. He outlined—
We thought it was about weapons of mass destruction.
These are Leaders' Questions, Deputy Higgins.
—how he will help to develop Iraq and how that will normalise the region.
Deputy Kenny asked an important question and I want to give him an answer.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Deputy Higgins, I ask you to restrain yourself.
On the other aspect mentioned by Deputy Kenny, Mr. da Silva will continue to act as the humanitarian co-ordinator, and he is in place now. He has that legitimacy under Resolution 1472. Mr. Ahmed's mandate is to work with the Secretary General and the Security Council. He does not have a role on the ground at present. I believe that will develop because President Bush said it will be in partnership. These things will not all happen over the next week or two. It will take some weeks but clearly the United Nations will have an involvement.
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
The Taoiseach has dramatically watered down the position of the United Nations. I have not heard any statement from the United Nations that implies it would settle for what the Taoiseach has attributed to Kofi Annan. I will come back to that.
When meeting President Bush, the Taoiseach took the opportunity to raise with him the horrific toll of civilian casualties. Did he tell the President about the revulsion of people in this country at the photographs of children, some of them without arms and some without access to hospital care as a result of this war? Is Deputy Kenny right? Did the Taoiseach ask President Bush whether the horrific bombardment of civilian areas is coming to an end? Did he ask him if the American forces have found any evidence of the weapons of mass destruction that caused this war to be launched in the first place? What did the Taoiseach mean yesterday when, having been asked whether he would accede to a Labour Party call on him to tell the US President that the Irish people saw the war as illegal, he told The Irish Times: “I have said from the outset I would be saying that so there is no need for people to remind me.” The Taoiseach sent his lawyers into court yesterday in the case before the High Court to say the opposite. Which is it?
In terms of the United Nations, what is the Taoiseach's understanding of President Bush's response to Mr. Chirac's statement that it was up to the United Nations alone to take on the political, economic, humanitarian and administrative reconstruction of Iraq? What is the Taoiseach's understanding of that statement which implies that at least that major country, which I suspect is speaking for many in the United Nations, wants Iraq to become a UN protectorate? What is the response of Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair to that and does the Taoiseach side with the position of Monsieur Chirac or that of President Bush?
I will try to answer all those questions. I urged the President and the Prime Minister to take every possible step to avoid civilian casualties and to do all they could to make sure humanitarian issues are observed in full. I gave an account of people's major concern about civilian casualties. They stated they have been making every effort in this war to keep civilian casualties to the lowest number possible. That is their position. I emphasised the immediate need to provide urgent treatment and care for the casualties of war. The position in the hospitals in Iraq is dire, and that is the word I used. I urged the President and the Prime Minister to provide field hospitals for the injured as a supplement to local hospitals. I received that information on humanitarian issues from the NGOs. I asked them to give serious consideration to that and the President said he thought it was a good idea. He did not think it was being done and he would relay it to the appropriate people. The President and Prime Minister told me how deeply conscious they are of the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. I recalled that Ireland had already pledged our resources which may be small in international terms but are considerable for a country of this size. We agreed that the humanitarian situation in Iraq must become the immediate priority as events move on.
It is clear from my discussions that the war will not end in a day or two. Their assessment seems to be that it will take some more days, although that is a military call. Deputy Kenny did not say that the UN made a statement. I was asked yesterday for my assessment of what Kofi Annan said. My view was that he wanted to get into partnership and contact has already been made in the period between my conversation with him and my meeting yesterday. He will be in London tomorrow and he will also visit some other countries. He will also meet with President Chirac.
On the question of the legitimacy of the war, I gave a press conference the other day during which I answered questions. My position has not changed on the legitimacy of the war. The position was not agreed in the Security Council and until an international body or the UN calls the war illegal, my position is that I am not calling the war illegal. There are difficulties because of what happened in the UN but that position remains the same.
On the Secretary General's view, it is not the position of the Secretary General now that the United Nations can come in and take over the entire operation of Iraq and put in place local government, engineering services and a government and reconstruct Iraq on its own. That is not the position of the United Nations. Its position is that it believes it can play a useful role. On the humanitarian aspects, it can play a total role. In the other area, the words used to me were the political facilitation leading to the emergence of a new or interim administration. That is what the Secretary General is anxious to get in on and he wants to be in partnership – I am using his words, not mine – with Prime Minister Blair and President Bush. I put that position, using precisely the same words, to President Bush and he strongly stated, and Prime Minister Blair agreed, that that was his intention and that was how it would work out. I want to be clear about this. It is not a question of America and the UK leaving Iraq at the end of the war. They will work in partnership with the UN and, hopefully, other countries. That is their clear intention.
The United States and the United Kingdom are members of the UN. Therefore the issue is, what does President Bush mean when he says that there will be a vital role for the UN? What does "the UN in partnership with the US and the UK" mean? They are either members of it or not. Having regard to the damage done to the world order by this war and having regard to the hostility in the region to the United States, surely the United Nations is the appropriate body to head up the reconstruction of Iraq?
Did the Taoiseach bring to the attention of the President of the United State the concern about the targeting of a hotel where journalists were reporting the war? Three journalists were killed yesterday, bringing the number of journalists killed to 12 in all. Yesterday a US general said that if journalists wanted to be protected they could be embedded. Did the Taoiseach protest to the President of the United States about journalists being targeted in this war?
Who will deliver the food programme? Who will deliver the medicines to the hospitals? Through which agencies will they be distributed? If the supposed excuse for the launching of this war was the threat of weapons of mass destruc tion, did the President of the United States give the Taoiseach any reason to believe that such weapons have been uncovered?
On the procedural point, the Secretary General has stated to me that it will be the Security Council that will mandate a UN role post-conflict. He is proceeding in co-operation with the two gentlemen. The envoy, Mr. da Silva, is working on the humanitarian issue. The resolution that applies in that regard is Resolution 1472. Therefore that aspect of it is already being dealt with. The German chairmanship brought that through last Friday week.
On the other aspect, there is no resolution yet. The purpose of the meetings Kofi Annan is having with the regions – he met the regional leaders last week and on Monday he met, in private session, his own people just after I was talking to him – is to bring his position around. Presumably that will lead to a Security Council resolution, but that has not happened yet and, I presume, will not happen until after his meetings – he intends to go to Moscow, Paris, London and other venues today, tomorrow and Friday.
I stressed the concern of the Irish people, and I stated it the last time I was at an EU meeting. I expressed the same view about the civilian casualties and the targeting of areas where there did not seem to be a military presence. I made that point and, as I said earlier, the President said that they had been endeavouring to take care of civilian targets. Obviously that is not a view people would share when they see some of the incidents that have happened.
Deputy Rabbitte also asked about weapons of mass destruction. There are a number of ongoing examinations into products that have been found. I did not get a definitive answer that they had been proved to be weapons of mass destruction.
The President would be embarrassed to say he was taking them in from Texas.
Deputy Joe Higgins, are you taking Leaders' Questions for the Technical Group? It appears you are.
If you give me time, I will.
Has the Taoiseach had time to reflect on the Government's position regarding overflights of this country by US military aircraft in light of historical facts and the horrific outcome of the invasion of Iraq, including, as he said, taking care of civilian targets? Has he had time, since 20 March, to think again about his statement that Ireland has made overflights available to the United States for the past 50 years, and that it is factually and logically incorrect, according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for me or other Opposition spokespersons to suggest that the Government motion represents a departure from established policy?
Has the Taoiseach managed to study the details of what the past 50 years have brought about? In the 1950s, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Frank Aiken, stated that permission would be granted subject to the understanding that in the event of serious deterioration in the political situation in Europe or the Middle East, its authorisation would lapse. Former Deputy Peter Barry, Minister for Foreign Affairs in the 1980s, stated that clearance is not granted where troop-carrying aircraft is on route to military exercises. More recently, in 1989, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, the late Brian Lenihan, repeating the criteria, stated that the aircraft must not carry arms, ammunition or explosives. In light of that, does the Taoiseach recognise that, far from being a reiteration of long-standing policy, this is a clear departure from long-standing policy and that the motion put before us by the Government was an attempt to mislead this House because clearly heavy military equipment is overflying this State and the Government needs to reflect on its position?
Guidelines are laid down and the understanding of the American administration is that those guidelines are fulfilled, that heavy equipment is not carried in overflights. Last week I had an opportunity of talking to the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, who has taken an anti-war position, as everybody will be aware. Most of the heavy equipment is moving through his jurisdiction. I think he resents the fact that people have been criticising him because he has several thousand troops involved in the protection of bases and in the facilitation of the movement of this heavy equipment. While he has been against the war and has taken the same view in the UN as we did, he has done all he can to facilitate the movement of this equipment.
We know where the Germans stand, but where do the Irish stand?
The Deputy knows where I stand. He asked me if I changed my position. I have not changed my position.
What about targeting civilian areas?
On the civilian aspect, I stress that yesterday I genuinely put the case that the US and the UK need to take every single step they can, understanding that these are military operations, to avoid civilian casualties and to do the utmost to continue to observe the highest standards in this regard. Since they are using modern technology and they are engaged in targeting, they should be able to do better on that.
What about the cluster bombs?
I made that point very strongly yesterday.
If the Taoiseach is not changing his position, it appears that he agrees that the motion mislead the House because the situation has changed. The C130s that overfly this country are not carrying cotton wool. They are huge planes that are designed to carry large amounts of military equipment. If the Taoiseach thinks that they do not carry military equipment, he is misleading himself.
Will the Taoiseach agree to a debate on the unfolding situation in Iraq? In The Guardian today, Mr. James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA and the man proposed by the Pentagon to head up the Ministry of information in Iraq, clearly states that this is not a short war and that it will not be over soon. He states that it is more than a war against terrorism, that this is a war to extend democracy to those parts of the Arab and Muslim world that threaten the liberal civilisation that the US worked to build and defend. He states that that will probably take decades.
In light of the game plan that is unfolding, given that the toe is in the door in Iraq, is it not the case that the Government needs to seriously state and debate its position in this House? It is not a question of where we stand simply on the invasion of Iraq or on overflights, it is a matter of deciding how we go forward as a supposedly neutral country in the face of a plan that will take decades to implement.
If there were a grand plan for the USA to take over the Middle East – to follow the war in Iraq with invasions of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia – we would need to consider these issues. I made that point yesterday. However, I do not think there is any such intention.
Then why is it written here?
The United States would like to have better relationships with some of these countries and has had difficulties with some of them—
It certainly has.
—but I do not think military action is being contemplated.