Gay Mitchell
Question:104 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's current position on Iraq. [21411/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Foreign Conflicts.
The Government wishes to see the restoration of Iraq to the international community under a representative Government. This is in the interest of the entire international community. It is crucial that the Iraqi people are given a sense of ownership over the political reconstruction process. It is essential that agreement is reached on a credible timetable for handing over political responsibility to the Iraqi people. We welcome Colin Powell's announcement of a six-month deadline for an Iraqi constitution as a welcome step in the right direction. We hope that it will lead to a general acceleration of the timetable for transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi people.
We acknowledge that the ground must be prepared for a successful transfer of sovereignty, especially in terms of re-establishing security and stability. It is clear that there is much work to be done to achieve this. The violence that we have seen in recent weeks is a cause of grave concern. In particular, the recent attacks on the UN are to be condemned unreservedly as shameful acts of terrorism which assist no one, least of all the Iraqi people. These developments highlight the need for the international community to come to an agreement on how to proceed in Iraq.
We continue to look to the Security Council to ensure that the United Nations is seen to maintain its proper role as acting on behalf of the entire international community. This is essential in relation to the UN's ability to contribute to defusing the situation in Iraq and to the UN's future credibility. The Government has consistently advocated a central role for the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Discussions on a draft text for a possible new Security Council resolution are currently under way between members of the council. The initial text that was presented by the US contains a number of useful points, but it needs to go further in providing a central UN role and in giving an impetus to the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty. This very important opportunity must not be missed. A new resolution must be more than a means for supply of troops and funds. It must transform the situation. It must show that occupation is indeed intended to be only temporary and must meet the concerns I have already outlined on a credible timetable and a sense of ownership by the Iraqi people. These conditions must be met if the resolution is to have the necessary impact on the international community and especially on Arab public opinion.
The Government strongly encourages the Security Council in its work to agree on the way forward and we hope that a multinational force will be agreed. The full support of the Arab states, neighbouring countries and the international community as a whole is crucial to achieving these aims.
On a point of order, is the Minister replying to Question No. 104 alone and may I take it that the others will be answered separately?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
That is correct.
Given the Taoiseach's ambiguous comments in regard to the deployment of Irish troops in Iraq, will the Minister clearly inform the House whether it is intended that Irish troops will serve in Iraq in the multinational force to which he referred?
The Minister, who has just returned from the United Nations, referred to Colin Powell's hopes for a constitution for Iraq within six months. What are the UN hopes for Iraq and what plans has it put in place? Has the United Nations allowed itself to be subject to the decisions of the US Secretary of State or the US administration? What role is it taking to ensure that a safe, secure and self-governing Iraq is brought about?
In regard to the first part of the Deputy's question, the Taoiseach and I have made it clear that consideration will be given to any invitation to participate in the UN peace-keeping operation established by the Security Council or, as would be the case in Iraq, a multinational force authorised by the Security Council. However, the discussion of the necessary Security Council resolution is still taking place among the members of the Council. It is not clear when, or in what form, it might be adopted. Should the resolution be adopted and authorise a multinational force and should Ireland be invited to participate, the Government's consideration would then embrace a range of political, technical and military factors as to the desirability and feasibility of Irish participation. Any such assessment would also need to take into account the numbers of Irish permanent Defence Forces personnel available for overseas service at that time. In this connection, the Deputy will be aware that the Government will seek Dáil approval for the deployment of a significant number of personnel in the newly established UN mission in Liberia.
In regard to the second part of the Deputy's question, in discussions I have had with the UN Secretary General, as part of the troika of the European Union, he wants to see the maximum possible assistance being provided by the UN in the right circumstances and to see the right resolution adopted. That discussion is continuing. The Secretary General is liaising with all the members of the Security Council during these discussions. He is also concerned about the safety and security of UN personnel based on what has happened in Iraq. The question of minimum risk to UN personnel is another important consideration for him and his staff. He must also consider whether assistance can take place from within Iraq or from neighbouring states as in the past. How he will be able to organise UN participation, post the Security Council resolution which is at present under discussion, is a matter he is keeping under review.
The UN is centrally involved, thankfully, in trying to bring forward a resolution which will provide us with a framework and timetable that will see the sovereignty of the Iraqi people restored as soon as possible, consistent with security, political and other requirements.
Will the Minister tell the House, specifically in regard to what happened in Iraq where bilateral action was taken by the United States and Britain, what discussion he had with the Secretary General, or his colleagues at the United Nations recently, about getting the genie back into the bottle so as to ensure there is no more unilateral or bilateral action taken and that only multilateral action sanctioned by the UN Security Council takes place in the future?
I refer the Deputy to the speech of the Secretary General to the General Assembly when he addressed some of these issues. It put forward a challenging and ambitious proposal to the United Nations. Within 12 months an expert group will report to him based on a range of issues which he feels need to be addressed such as the charter and the reform of the UN. He is basically trying to set out a charter for more effective multilateralist action in the future. I can only refer the Deputy to the points which the Secretary General raised in his speech with which I concur.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:105 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the conditions which have led the Taoiseach to suggest that Irish troops may serve in Iraq; the requirements the Government will seek in a new Security Council resolution of the UN; the discussions in this regard his Department has had with European Union partners and the United States of America; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21410/03]
As the Deputy will be aware, members of the Security Council are currently discussing the possibility of adopting a resolution which would define a role for the United Nations in Iraq's transition to sovereignty and would also authorise the deployment to Iraq of a multinational force. If such a resolution is adopted, it is of course possible that Ireland would be one of the countries invited to participate in this force.
The Government would, as a general principle, wish that any multinational operation authorised by the Security Council have a clear mandate, attainable goals and adequate staffing and resources. However, the details of any resolution establishing a mandate for a multinational force are a matter for the current members of the Security Council.
At this stage, it is too early to comment meaningfully on the nature of or conditions for possible Irish participation in any such force other than to point to the need for its authorisation by the Security Council. Should that condition be fulfilled and should Ireland be invited to participate in the force, the Government would consider the invitation in the normal manner.
The members of the current coalition in Iraq and members of the international community in general are well aware that no consideration can be given to the participation of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force in any military operation overseas in the absence of a UN mandate.
It is singularly confusing to refer to a multinational force, approved by the UN, as if it was the same as a UN-initiated peacekeeping operation. This is what the Taoiseach did when he sought to draw comparisons between Irish peacekeeping deployment in East Timor and Eritrea with the suggestion that Irish troops might participate in Iraq. Is the Minister aware of the distinction, in terms of Irish law, the Defence Acts and the Constitution, between a UN-initiated peacekeeping force and his so-called multinational force?
I listened with care to the Minister's answer to Question No. 104. However, he did not elaborate on his use of the word "sovereignty". How does he see the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people being accommodated by, for example, the opening of all industries, apart from oil – from education and water through to pharmaceuticals – to foreign multinationals?
Will the Minister elaborate on whether the Taoiseach and he propose to make an unequivocal statement in regard to the principle of pre-emption? He quoted the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, who was far more direct in his condemnation of pre-emption as a principle that defies the UN charter. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were singularly evasive in regard to that issue on every occasion on which it was put to them in this House.
There is no distinction between what the Taoiseach and I have said. The circumstances in which the Defence Forces might participate in Iraq in trying to bring about a transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people depends on a number of things. First, it depends upon a Security Council resolution with a clear mandate to that effect, which we do not have at the moment – it is under discussion. Therefore, the question is speculative by definition. However, the general principles which apply are the same for the Defence Forces whether we are in the Congo, East Timor or anywhere else.
I am well aware, as is the Minister for Defence and the Government, of the provisions of the Defence Acts and, as we have always said, the first requirement is a UN mandate, following which the Government, if invited, will give consideration to it. The Government is not being automatically asked to get involved with something it does not wish to.
The Deputy will know that the Government has successfully negotiated at European level in order that the sovereign decision and approval of this Parliament is required for any service overseas in any capacity. Therefore, the distinctions between multinational forces, peacekeeping forces or peace enforcement operations do not matter since they are nebulous in terms of the substance of the argument. A sovereign decision by Government, with the approval of the Oireachtas and a prior UN mandate, are the simple parameters for the participation by our Defence Forces overseas and the same applies in this case as in any other.
Until such time as we see the terms and contents of a resolution from the Security Council on that matter, we are involved in speculation. There has been no attempt by the Government to create confusion. If I am asked a question which has that conditionality attached to it, I am in a position to give the broad parameters of participation, which are the same, are consistent and apply under law. There is no confusion.
In regard to the transfer of sovereignty, of course the purpose that one would expect and require is a transfer of sovereignty in the normal sense of the word, namely, a democratic Government in charge of all aspects of Iraqi life, run by the Iraqi people under a democratically elected administration. That is what we, the UN and Kofi Annan have in mind. We await the Security Council's discussions on the terms of the resolution to confirm how and on what timetable they expect this to be achieved. This, of course, would involve a sovereign decision over all aspects of national life. However, we are at the point of trying to incrementalise the level of participation under the governing council or transitional administration, pending the development of a constitution, elections and the Iraqi people making their own sovereign decision as to what representative government they want.
In regard to the Deputy's third question, I suggest he read the Official Report. He specifically asked me some months ago if I believed the doctrine of pre-emption was illegal and I said "Yes".
The Minister told me that—
Excuse me, Deputy, it is on the record of the House – there is no ambiguity.
I will tell the Minister what he said—
The Deputy asked a question and I am giving the answer. I will find the section in the Official Report and give it to the Deputy. I specifically recall the Deputy asking the question and I had no problem in answering it because the doctrine of pre-emption has no basis in international law. The problem and the reason we were having a debate about it was that the Deputy's characterisation of the military action by the coalition forces is one of a pre-emptive strike—
Which it was.
—and he does not accept it has any legal basis. Those who took the action believe they had sufficient legal basis, based on existing resolutions and continuing non-compliance by the Iraqis over ten years from Resolutions 678 to 1441. It was an arguable case.
The Government's position when Ireland was on the Security Council is in the explanation of the votes. I have not heard any Opposition Member wishing to convey to me that it was a simple position for the Government. We were on the Security Council when Resolution 1441 was agreed in October 2002. Regardless of the arguments which were being conducted as to whether there was sufficient legal basis under existing resolutions, we said that in order to gain the widest possible legitimacy and support from the international community for such action, we believed that the political requirements of the situation would require a further resolution and that it would be for the Security Council to subsequently decide that. That was our position in October, it remained our position and we have consistently put that position. If we had been on the Security Council over the course of the past 12 months, that would have remained our position.
At certain points, people have sought to create confusion by saying that the provision of overflight and landing facilities constitutes a participation in the war. I ask the Deputy or any other Deputy in this House to provide a semblance of evidence under international law where the provision of overflight or landing facilities constitutes participation in a military action in legal terms.
The Minister changed his position last February.
They will not find it because it does not exist, in the same way that the principle of pre-emption does not exist. If that is not as full and comprehensive a reply as I can give, it is as clear as I can make it.
I intend to have an appropriate amount of time for my question. I listened with care to the Minister's answer and I intend to put some questions. Is he not embarrassed that he began by referring to the provision of facilities at Shannon and by constant reference to the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which is proved to be a sinister fabrication, not an error? I put it to him on the day he spoke that what had taken place in relation to Iraq was a pre-emptive strike which was illegal. While we debated the principle of pre-emption, I called it an illegal act. His reply to me on that occasion on the specific issue was that the jury was out, more or less what he has said this afternoon. We differ on the matter. I called it an illegal and pre-emptive act which was destructive of the charter.
In relation to what the Taoiseach suggested in either his tête-à-tête with Hillary Rodham Clinton or at the UN itself, my question was about conditions that would be attached to Irish participation. I put it to the Minister that the Defence Act is specific in relation to a UN mandate or UN-initiated actions. Will the Minister tell the House how he will square Irish military participation, even in reconstruction, until he has addressed the original issue of illegality and pre-emption? He should not quote the Defence Act because it does not speak about UN-approved actions. We can differ on the issue. The Minister can take it whatever way he likes but that is not what the text of the Defence Act 1954 or any other legislation supported by the Constitution states.
We speak about a multinational force. What conditions would be attached to such a force?
Let me answer the Deputy very simply. He can be fully reassured that there will be no question of any participation by Irish Defence Forces in any action internationally which does not have a legal basis in our own country. He can take that as read, as would be the case with any Government, regardless of its political composition. This attempt to say that there is some preparedness on the part of the Government to participate in a multinational force which would not have a proper legal basis in this country is without foundation. What we are simply saying when asked is that the consideration that would be given to that issue would be the very same consideration given to any other invitation or request received from the UN on the basis of a UN Security Council resolution – no more or no less. Instead of everyone running ahead of themselves, people should wait to see whether there will be a UN resolution to that effect.
The Minister should have anticipated it.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We must move on to the next question.
The second point I want to make in reply to Deputy Higgins is that the issue of non-compliance by the Iraqi regime with successive UN resolutions meant they were not meeting their disarmament obligations, regardless of whether the weapons of mass destruction were in existence then or before.
That is a new tune.
It is not a new tune. I heard no one in this House suggest that the UN was wrong to suggest they were not getting sufficient co-operation.
(Interruptions).
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We must proceed to the next question.
No one contested that issue. The benefit of hindsight does not turn you into a statesman.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I call Question No. 106.
The genie is out of the bottle.