Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Oct 2003

Vol. 571 No. 2

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

John Gormley

Question:

108 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when a new resolution on Iraq is expected before the United Nations Security Council; the elements the Government will want included in such a resolution; if the Government intends to provide troops for a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21413/03]

I have already informed the House in reply to an earlier question that discussions on a draft text for a possible Security Council resolution are currently under way. The Government is following developments as closely as possible, but it is difficult to say anything more than that negotiations are likely to continue for some time.

In my earlier replies, I also outlined the Government's position on the other elements raised by the Deputy.

I thank the Minister for that very short reply. Would he accept that the war which this Government supported has been entirely counterproductive, that it has destabilised the entire country of Iraq, that it has sown the seeds for further terrorism and has resulted in the deaths of many innocent Iraqis? When the Minister observes what has happened, does he have any regrets about supporting this war? Specifically, does the Minister accept that what America is now engaged in is a military exercise or operation because, when the Minister was justifying the use of Shannon, he told me in reply to a parliamentary question that he would allow Shannon to be used only if it was not part of a military exercise or operation. What is going on in Iraq now? Is it a military operation? Is it a military exercise? Can the Minister clarify where he is coming from on that?

In replying to previous questions the Minister has been quite vague and has performed his usual trick of not telling us where he stands. It seems it is possible for Mr. Chirac or Mr. Schröder to say where they stand but not for the Minister. I am asking where specifically the Minister stands on the question of the transfer of sovereignty.

Second, where does the Minister stand on the question of who should be in charge of this oper ation? Should it be UN-led or should it be led by the US? These are fundamental questions when it comes to this new resolution.

The problem is that Deputy Gormley uses colloquial terms in the context of ascribing legal responsibility to this Government.

The Minister supported it.

I will keep saying this because the Deputy wants to know what my position is. My position has been consistent and clear all the time. We required a second UN resolution for us to support military action. That was and remains the situation.

The provision of landing and overflight facilities is a separate question. It does not, according to international law, constitute participation in war. If it were—

Is it a military engagement or operation? Answer the question.

The Deputy will not listen because he does not like hearing the truth.

I will not listen to bunkum.

If the Deputy's logic is correct, that the provision of overflight and landing facilities constituted participation in the war, it means he would have to accept that France and Germany participated in the war because they provided overflight and landing facilities. However, the Deputy regards them as the beacons that I should have looked up to. The Deputy's logic does not stand up.

The Minister is misquoting me. This is a military exercise or operation. I am quoting what the Minister said.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is in possession.

The Deputy is very good at quoting selectively. I am explaining the consistent position of the Government. For the Deputy to interrupt me when I have not interrupted him will not win him the argument.

The Minister has lost the argument.

It is not the way to carry on. The Deputy has asked a question but when I try to speak he interrupts me. I do not know who it impresses. Perhaps it impresses the Green Party. It does not impress anyone else.

The Minister is not impressing anyone.

We need straight answers.

I have no problem with straight answers. Despite what the Deputy continually says, landing and overflight facilities do not, in international law, constitute participation in military action. By the same token, France and Germany who supplied the same facilities are not regarded by the Deputy as having participated in a war. How can the Deputy ascribe to this Government a level of participation that he is not prepared to ascribe to anyone else? The illogicality of the Deputy's argument is demonstrated, simply and clearly.

What was the second point?

Obviously the Minister was not listening.

The Deputy asked what did I mean by sovereignty in relation to Iraq. As I stated from the outset, what we mean is that the Iraqi people will elect a democratic government under their own constitution and operate as a sovereign state in the same way as other countries. Is that clear enough for the Deputy? We have said consistently that the United Nations must play a central role in that transition to a full democratic Iraq. Is that clear enough? What is confusing about it?

The Minister is deliberately confusing the issues.

There is no confusion.

I cited what the Minister told me in reply to a parliamentary question. I will cite it again so that the Minister will understand it fully, so that it will be crystal clear. The Minister said that planes would not be allowed to land at Shannon if they were part of a military exercise or operation. I put it to the Minister that what was happening in Iraq was a military operation. It was a military exercise. The Minister seems to be denying that. If he is denying it, he is living in cloud-cuckoo land because what happened in Iraq was a full-scale war in which many people lost their lives. The Minister rattled on about weapons of mass destruction.

What is the reference?

I want to make this point now because I do not have much time.

Will the Deputy give me the reference, so I can examine all of the question?

I have it here and I will give it to the Minister, but please let him desist from interrupting. I want to quote from an article.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not quote during Question Time.

An article in the Independent on Sunday on 14 September 2003 stated that a Brit ish diplomat went into the Department of Foreign Affairs in Iveagh House, presented a dossier and one of the Minister's officials said that what was in the dossier was nonsense. If the Minister's officials knew that the whole question of weapons of mass destruction was nonsense why did he, on six different occasions in this House, use it as an excuse for supporting the Americans?

I never used it as an excuse.

The Minister always used it.

Let me answer the question. Interrupting me every time I open my mouth will not win the argument. I never used such a dossier from any other government, British, American, North Korean or anywhere else.

The Minister used the existence of weapons of mass destruction as a reason.

Does the Deputy want an answer to the question?

Yes. I want the truth.

I never relied on any dossier from any UK or US government or any other sovereign government in relation to the position of the Irish Government on this matter. I relied on the UN and the reports which confirmed that it was not getting full co-operation from the Iraqi regime. Let us remember that was the problem. If that problem did not exist, if we had full co-operation from this regime, we would not have been the position in which we found ourselves. I never relied on any such dossier in the advice I gave the Government or when I came into this House to defend its position.

I am not interested in what is in any other government's dossier. I was interested in what the United Nations was telling the international community about the Iraqi regime's lack of co-operation with its inspectors over a ten-year period.

On a point of order, the Minister asked me to give him a reference. It is 26 November 2002.

I will give the Deputy a full and detailed reply to that false contention.

Top
Share