Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 2004

Vol. 586 No. 1

Foreign Conflicts: Statements (Resumed).

This is a timely debate. As well as the appalling deaths of civilians yesterday in Iraq at the hands of American forces, and the many thousands of lives lost in Iraq in the past year, this week Iraq has suffered the loss of the head of the Governing Council, Abdel-Zahraa Othman, assassinated in Baghdad on Monday morning last. As a man of moderation, he is a loss to all Iraqis and to everyone who wishes to see the country reach its full political and economic potential.

The continuing loss of life brings into sharp focus the huge challenge of stabilising Iraq as the deadline for the transfer of sovereignty approaches on 30 June. It also shows yet again that the enemies of a new Iraq are determined to disrupt the progress towards freedom and democratisation, whether this is American-led or UN-led. The killing of Mr. Othman, and of many others involved in nation building and UN activities, demonstrates that extremists are not just intent on ending American and British involvement in Iraq, but want to see a descent into anarchy and civil war and even perhaps a return to the tyranny in the style of the old regime.

As we reflect quite properly here today on the flaws in the US and UK strategy in Iraq, and there are many, we would do well to reflect on the strategic goals of those who are actively destabilising Iraq. For the sake of all Iraqis, and the wider region, every effort must be made to prevent a descent into anarchy. There is an urgent need for calm and balanced voices in international affairs. These are extremely testing times for Iraq, first and foremost, for America and Britain and the International community, including Ireland in its role as Presidency of the European Union.

The images of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated at Abu Ghraib prison, has rightly caused deep offence around the civilised world. Our instinct is to demand responsibility for such violations, military responsibility on the ground as well as political responsibility at the highest level.

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention on to the treatment of prisoners of war is unequivocal. It prohibits "violence to life, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture". Also outlawed is "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". Those horrific images of Iraqi prisoners recently published by the print and electronic media represent crime scenes. Many images showing what went on in the prisons suggest coercive and sexually loaded subordination of Iraqi male prisoners, many hooded, bound, and naked. These images are tailor made to cause maximum offence to Muslim sexual sensibilities.

From time immemorial war has brought out the worst in human kind. Dehumanising the enemy has frequently been employed to assist soldiers to take life and to overcome the in-built human resistance to doing so. However, these images that have so scandalised the world have not happened in the heat of battle. The sadistic and pornographic elements are plain for all to see and raise very serious issues about the training and psychological assessment of military personnel who are given control of prisoners in times of war. Clearly, standards have been allowed to fall below levels acceptable to civilised values. So, how is it that a country like the United States, which claims to be a leader in democratic values and to honour the rule of law, can find itself so shamed? Could it be that in the so called war against terrorism anything goes? I think the answer lies not in the criminal perversion and human frailty of young reservists who were actors in these images but rather a quite dramatic slippage of morality at the command levels in the US administration. Many friends of the American people, like ourselves, have been frankly appalled at these developments.

The date of 11 September 2001 was a defining moment in modern times. Such a savage and seemingly unprovoked attack on peaceful citizens in New York and Washington by terrorists and the visible and appalling loss of life has brought profound changes in the American psyche. In times to come, this will be the subject of massive research and analysis. Right now, we all are living through the outturn of what has recently happened to the American political and military mind. Fear, incredulity and vengeance has taken hold and leadership has been found wanting in the American political class and judiciary. The most complicated issues have been simplified and dummed down. Anyone who is not with America is against America. Many have asked questions about the manner in which prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were being hooded, shackled and abused outside the jurisdiction of the US and the remit of international law. It is now suggested that the Pentagon may have authorised this non-compliance with international law to extend into Iraq for purposes of interrogation. Guantanamo Bay set the tone and it was base. The US has not signed up for the International Criminal Court and now we know why.

Confidence in the US military will not be restored solely by courts martial of relatively low-ranking reservists. The credibility of the United States is now on trial. If knowledge and complicity is proven between the Pentagon and this abuse and if democratic accountability is to mean anything, there must be resignations at the highest level in the Bush administration.

While the current situation is grave, it is also important not to lose sight of the larger picture in Iraq. The fate of 23 million brutalised and traumatised people is in the balance and we have to be on their side. This requires a fair-minded and sober approach that avoids extreme positions and unrealistic demands. Some have reacted to the prisoner abuse scandal by calling for an immediate withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq. This would be irresponsible at this time. If such a premature withdrawal were to happen it would undoubtedly result in the fracture of Iraqi society and an abandonment of the civilian population. It would also trigger an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. The American, British and other forces have obligations to Iraq that will not be met by withdrawal. Neither will they be met by the killing of civilians and oppressive military operations against the civilian population such as those we saw yesterday. Confidence among Iraqis in international assistance can only be built by co-operation and not domination.

As the current holder of the EU Presidency, Ireland is uniquely poised to ensure that every effort is made in this regard. For the sake of the Iraqi people, we need to find a consensus through the United Nations that is not compromised by purely strategic considerations but driven by political realities and humanitarian considerations. All sides must now realise that a peaceful and prosperous Iraq is in everyone's best interest. Without it the security of the Middle East and the wider world cannot be guaranteed. Israel, backed by the US, is breaking international law with impunity. Standards are at an all time low in the Middle East and the occupied territories. The current offensive in Gaza is a disgrace. That is why after 30 June there needs to be a clear indication that the occupation in Iraq has given way to facilitation and nation building. That is why we should criticise America if it is found to have committed war crimes. I do not hesitate to criticise the US on this issue. Without such visible signs of a real transfer of sovereignty, as well as some voice of sanction on wrongdoing by the occupying forces, the Iraqi government will have little chance of earning the respect of all its citizens and of defeating extremist forces.

Conflict between the European Union and the United States only encourages and emboldens the common enemy of all liberal democracies. In a global age we are all equally at risk. This has been dramatically highlighted by the current threat by al-Qaeda facing the United Nations special representative to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi. The people who oppose Mr. Brahimi do not make distinctions between America and Britain, on the one side, and France, Germany, and Russia on the other. When they murder and threaten senior UN personnel they show contempt for the entire community of democratic nations. That is why it is now crucial for the United Nations to speak with one voice and common cause on Iraq.

Despite all the tragic scenes witnessed in recent months, many Iraqi citizens still hope things will eventually come right for them. There is much healing to be done around the world. The anger in the Arab street is vexed and hot. It is no less genuine or vengeful than the bewildered pain in the American heart since 11 September 2001.

I am glad to have the opportunity to express a view on this serious international issue. The reality is that it was Saddam Hussein who built that jail in Iraq. The images of Iraqi prisoner abuse by American soldiers are evil but Saddam was even more evil. On one day alone, Saddam Hussein killed more than 2,000 prisoners in the same jail and we must not lose sight of that fact. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an evil and a dangerous dictatorship. It had the potential to destabilise all the Middle East. When President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq, he assumed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the potential to develop them. We all believed him and Mr. Tony Blair. That is why many of us supported the invasion. We also believed that a democratic Government would be put in place if Saddam Hussein was deposed. Looking at the issues as we saw them at the time, we felt there was justification for what they were doing and that despite our concerns, they were right. That has proved not to be the case.

The truth is there are no weapons of mass destruction, the Americans had no plan other than to depose Saddam and there was no government in waiting which had the support of the majority of the Iraqi people. Instead, we have the awful catastrophe we are seeing today. The images on our television screens highlight the total lack of leadership the Americans and British have shown.

I am pro-American. I value the contribution America makes to our society, particularly to jobs in this country. Yesterday's announcement of investment here of €1.6 billion by an important American company is an indication of our strong economic ties to America, and it has strong economic ties to Ireland. Valuable employment is being created by American money in Ireland. There are also strong ties between the citizens of Ireland and people in America. For generations, Irish people have found a home, jobs and support in America. We have benefited greatly from our connection with the American people.

The difficulty is that we now have to challenge what America, and particularly George Bush, has done. I want to make the distinction that I am pro-America but I am anti-Bush. The policies of the American Government, as enunciated by George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and all the others, are anathema to those of us in Ireland and we are right to criticise constructively and in a firm way, what has happened in Iraq. In the absence of the weapons of mass destruction and the reason for this war, George Bush should go and Tony Blair should also resign because they no longer have any credibility in the actions they have taken. It is clear that those of us in Ireland must learn from this conflict. For the future peace and stability of the global community, Ireland must stand by the authority and integrity of the United Nations.

In numerous debates on this issue in the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, Fine Gael articulated an unambiguous position in stark contrast to the confusion of the Government parties. We stated that unilateral action against Iraq by any state was not acceptable and action, if taken, must have multilateral support and must be authorised in an appropriate way by the United Nations Security Council. Fine Gael stated clearly that Ireland should support a new United Nations resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq and that if this resolution was not adhered to, Ireland should then participate in the debate on a further resolution setting out the actions to be taken by the United Nations to meet such a failure. Ireland cannot have it both ways. If we are opposed to unilateral action, we must consider the case where multilateral action, as authorised by the United Nations, would command our support.

During the debate on the use of Shannon and the over-flying of Ireland by United States forces on their way to Iraq, Fine Gael made it clear it would support such action if it had a United Nations mandate. When challenged, some other parties said they would oppose such a war with or without United Nations support. That is an untenable position. Either we have multilateral action duly mandated by international law or the rule of law itself is called into dispute.

Certain political parties have stated for years that they oppose any action not mandated by the United Nations. However, when it looked like the UN might mandate war in Iraq in certain circumstances, they abandoned that position. In other words, their views were not based on principles but on telling a segment of the people what they wanted to hear. That is an appalling way to approach a serious policy issue which has such life and death implications.

In standing by the authority and role of the United Nations in international disputes, Fine Gael articulates our commitment to the United Nations. In sidelining the United Nations by pursuing unilateral action in Iraq, damage has been caused to that agency that will not be easy to repair.

Making sure we do not allow such harm to be done to the United Nations in the future is one of the key lessons that must be learned from the conflict in Iraq. We must not forget that dreadful attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad last August, which claimed 22 lives, including that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

I am reluctant to intervene but does the Deputy intend to share time?

I wish to share time with Deputy Boyle.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am grateful to Deputy O'Dowd for sharing time with me. The most recent photographs that have become available today of American soldiers with sadistic grins and thumbs-up signs crouching over the corpse of an Iraqi man with eyes bandaged appear to be as emblematic of much of the attitude surrounding this war as any image we have seen in recent weeks. I fear that the attitude of the American Government, and not that of the American people, has brought about Guantanamo Bay in terms of the decision that some prisoners are of lesser worth than others and, in the conduct of policy, that some people are of lesser worth than others. We know the number of American and British soldiers who have died in this conflict. We know that soldiers from other countries who have taken part in this so-called coalition have died. We do not know the number of Iraqis who have died. No one has considered it important enough to count those numbers, and the obvious inference, in terms of western reportage of this conflict, is that it is somehow less important whether people who are Iraqi live or die.

Military manoeuvres are continuing, whether they are attacks on the coalition forces or the actions we saw yesterday in attacking a wedding party, which is still referred to as collateral damage. When the language of war becomes so debased and the reasons the war started are lost on the mists of time, we should at least ask why we have allowed our airports to be frequented by people who have done this in the name of democracy and decency.

I was a history teacher in a previous career and one of the highlights of Irish history we used to teach related to Winston Churchill praising himself for not having invaded Ireland during the Second World War for frolicking with German and Japanese embassies. The then Taoiseach, Éamon de Valera, roundly rebuked him and made the statement that if Britain's need had become a moral code, the rules of international law would become nought. That strikes me as being resonant today because there are some people in the American Administration who appear to believe America's need has now become a moral code, such that it can ignore basic principles of international law, walk circles around fairly accepted concepts of multilateralism and take the world down a road which has not been travelled previously. I would be concerned about that view in the US Administration.

What was done in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is related to this observation. The Pentagon appears to have realised that it was not making progress in Iraq, that Shiite and Sunni insurgency was growing and that the only way to stop it was to exercise dubious practices which had not been previously used in international law. A report produced last February makes the matter clear. The Pentagon wanted to bring special programmes into Iraq which had been successful in Guantanamo. There the Americans had created a category of person called an illegal combatant so as to avoid the application of the Geneva Convention. In Baghdad, the Americans decided the best way to get information about insurgency was to treat prisoners in the manner illustrated so graphically in newspapers and television programmes.

The buck stops with leadership. I predict that Mr. Rumsfeld will not be Secretary of Defence at the end of this year. Even if President Bush manages to win the election, Mr. Rumsfeld's position is not tenable because of what has happened. He must take responsibility for that.

Deputy O'Dowd referred to our attitude to America and cited the example of Mr. Churchill and Mr. de Valera. The Governments of Ireland and Britain have sometimes been at loggerheads but the people of Ireland and Britain have always been close. The ties of history, often created by emigration, have always been close. The Irish and American people are also extremely close, again because of emigration and recently because of our business connections. This closeness should never be confused with legitimate criticism of the US Government, and particularly of the present administration.

While the United States has charged itself with the role of world policeman and with world governance, it has no accountability to the rest of the world. We cannot vote for the American President or put any American out of office. Nevertheless, Americans assume for themselves responsibility for world governance. This sets a dangerous precedent. It shows us that America's need to root out al-Qaeda and to stop insurgency in Baghdad has become a moral code. It is a basic principle enshrined in the Geneva Convention that any prisoner is entitled to human dignity whether he or she is an illegal combatant, a prisoner of war or in any circumstance. Prisoners have been denied human dignity and that is my concern.

We should not merely wring our hands in condemnation. We must consider what happens next. The United Nations is clearly the only institution which can bring Iraq back to normality. I would not oppose the division of Iraq under a system of federal government to allow for the serious ethnic differences which were suppressed during the regime of Saddam Hussein. The UN holds the only authority in the eyes of the world and of Iraqis to ensure that transition. However, it is not wise for the United States to withdraw from Iraq at present. Whatever the merits of the US arrival in Iraq, the speedy departure of the Americans would be more chaotic than their arrival.

We must consider the future of the UN and what it can do. In March 2003, the French said they would not support a UN resolution which contained an ultimatum to Iraq. This effectively disarmed the United Nations with regard to Iraq, despite the 17 resolutions outstanding relating to Saddam Hussein and his compliance with disarmament requirements. As such, the United Nations is in need of radical reform. The charter of the UN needs to be reviewed on the basis that some of the great threats to world peace and stability are from non-state actors. The Geneva Convention was written at a time when combatants met each other in uniform in muddy fields and took potshots at each other in a reasonably civilised way, if any war can be civilised. Nowadays that is not the case. The rules of engagement have changed completely and the UN must recognise that. It must review its charter and review the issue of pre-emptive strikes to which Deputy Higgins has referred and consider the circumstances of the threats from al-Qaeda and similar terrorists.

A report is due from the United Nations on these issues and I believe it will point the finger at the Pentagon and at a much higher level than criminal activity by individual soldiers. There has been a concerted level of abuse designed to gain information to stop the insurgency. We should await the outcome of that report. If it contains what I have predicted, we must make it clear to the United States that we condemn its actions and call for accountability before some international tribunal. It is a matter of regret that the United States will not ratify agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, bans on landmines and the test ban treaty or recognise the International Criminal Court. This attitude was also typical of the previous US administration under President Clinton. We must bring pressure to bear on the United States of America to bring that country to account before the world it claims to govern.

We should not miss the occasion of the visit of President Bush to engage him on these issues on which Irish people hold strong and principled views. I hope those views will be conveyed to President Bush when he visits.

Two excuses were given by the United States of America and its coalition allies for the launching of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. One was to remove and destroy weapons of mass destruction and the second was to bring democracy to Iraq. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Fourteen months on, not a single weapon has been found that could be described as such and there is little to suggest that Saddam Hussein had the capacity either to produce or use such weapons, and certainly not on the scale suggested. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the military intelligence used to justify the war and to mislead the United Nations was deliberately falsified and designed to mislead.

The second reason given for the war was to bring democracy to Iraq and the entire region. Once the Iraqi people had seen American-style democracy in action, it was said that the demand for democratic reforms would spread though the Middle East like a bushfire. We were told, and US troops were told, that they would be greeted as liberators and welcomed with flowers and open arms by a grateful Iraqi people. There is no doubt that many Iraqis were only too happy to see the overthrow of a brutal dictator who had inflicted such suffering on his own people, but neither is there any doubt that the majority of Iraqi people now greatly resent the occupation of their country by the United States of America and its allies, and there is little doubt that a major contributing factor in this has been the approach and tactics of the troops and the US Administration.

I am sure the question people throughout the Middle East will be asking is what type of democracy President George Bush and his allies have brought to Iraq that promotes the right to abuse and humiliate prisoners so extensively. It is not good enough for the United States of America to say that Iraqi prisoners were subjected to even more brutal treatment in the very same prison by Saddam Hussein's regime. That was the case and we should acknowledge that fact. However, we are entitled to expect more of a democratic country that styles itself as the leader of the free world than from a despised dictator.

There is no doubt that the treatment of these prisoners represents a breach of virtually every principle of the Geneva Convention. When we see photographs like these, the refusal of the United States to recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court becomes obvious. Does anyone in the United States Administration have any idea of the impact on conservative Islamic opinion of graphic photographs of the humiliation and sexual degradation of Iraqi prisoners? Can anyone be in any doubt that these photographs will be used to recruit yet more young Muslims to extremist groups? Do they wonder what image is being presented of a western culture defined by such cruel depravity?

It is also difficult to believe that such activities could have been carried out without the knowledge and consent of the military's political masters. We cannot be sure where the political trail leads, but it almost certainly leads to the Pentagon and probably to the White House. That puts Ireland in a potentially embarrassing position. Not only have we allowed our facilities at Shannon to be used to facilitate a war that had no legal authority, but we are now faced with an official visit by the President of the United States when the international reputation of the US has never been at a lower ebb. Will the Secretary for Defence, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, be a member of the Bush entourage? Will the Taoiseach and other Ministers be lining up on the runway at Shannon to shake the hand of the man who many reputable US publications claim approved this appalling treatment?

If all this were not bad enough, yesterday we witnessed the further impact of US military activity. Whether the target of the US attack was a wedding party, as most independent observers state, or a suspected safe house for foreign fighters, as the US claims, the result was the same, dead women and children and more dismembered bodies. All of this and the continuing violence that has led to the deaths of hundreds of Iraqi civilians over recent weeks shows that the time has come for a new political initiative to establish order and the rule of law. It is clear that the United States of America and its allies cannot deliver peace and stability.

The United Nations must be placed in direct charge of efforts to restore peace and to ensure the reconstruction of Iraq. This will require a new mandate from the Security Council. We urge the Taoiseach to use the coming weeks to seek support for such an initiative before the Irish Presidency ends.

There is a danger, in the context of commenting on the situation in Iraq, that we will be driven by the politics of the last atrocity. It is difficult to avoid. An article in this week's The Economist probably encapsulates what many of us feel. It states:

On Capitol Hill, American officials apologise and squirm in the face of evidence that the maltreatment of Iraqi prisons at Abu Ghraib was widespread, known about long before it found its way into the public domain and, much more callous — as new pictures and videos are said to show — than has been depicted in the ugly enough photographs published already. From Iraq comes a spectacle of an American civilian, Nick Berg, being beheaded in "retaliation" on video. Not since September 11th has the world felt so close to a collision between what Arabs see as an arrogant, decadent and hypocritical America on one side and what Americans see as an implacable, violent Islam on the other. Did the Iraq war have to end this way?

It did not. As Deputy Andrews stated earlier, it is difficult to believe the specialists and operatives photographed carrying out those atrocities did so entirely of their own volition. One has to wonder whether there was collusion involving those from much higher up the command chain.

At a recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, we met with parliamentarians from Turkey. Among that delegation was a former Foreign Minister from Turkey. In reply to a question I put to him in terms of what advice he was able to give to the American Administration prior to the invasion of Iraq, he suggested that whatever else they did when removing the first, second or third layer of the Ba'ath regime, it should not be entirely dismantled. It strikes me at this stage that we are reaping the rewards of the coalition forces disregarding fairly widespread advice that Iraqis are a generous, disciplined and dignified people. Relieved of Saddam Hussein's abhorrent regime they may well have been capable of taking on self-governance much earlier than is now likely to be the case.

The Government has been active in its role as President of the European Union, and in a national capacity, in relation to Iraq. Ireland participates in the United Nations group of friends and the Iraqi core group. This participation furthers the EU aim of contributing to the political process in Iraq and to reconstruction activities through the Iraqi core group. Ireland also seeks to influence the situation in Iraq through bilateral contacts with key players. In this regard, the Government has had exchanges with the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and his Special Adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi. We have offered them our continuing support for their efforts in Iraq.

Government representatives have met with senior figures in the governments of other permanent members of the UN Security Council. We take every opportunity to speak to the current EU members of the Security Council, Spain, Germany, France and the UK. We also engage with other UN agencies, international organisations and our NGO partners. I am well aware of the work being done by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, in his capacity as Minister of State with responsibility for development in that area. In these bilateral contacts, we have stressed our key positions, that we support as rapid a transfer of power as possible to a democratically elected Iraqi Government and that the UN should play a strong and vital role in the transition process.

During a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs today, Deputy Michael D. Higgins and I suggested the West is remiss in its attempts to try to impose western style democracy not just on Iraq, but many other countries where, possibly, another model of democracy other than that practised by western Europe might be more appropriate.

We will also continue to raise the issues involved with EU partners and seek to achieve consensus on the situation and the way forward. As a result of such work, the spring European Council adopted an important declaration which welcomed recent positive political developments on Iraq, including the signing of the Transitional Administrative Law and the UN's acceptance of the invitation received from the current Iraqi authorities to assist with the formation of an interim government and with the preparation for elections.

The Council also noted the European Union's determination to assist the Iraqi people as they enter a new era in the history of their country. In October 2003, it requested the High Representative and Commission to work on a medium-term strategy for the EU relationship in Iraq. This is expected to be ready for the June European Council. The recent spring European Council noted the European Union's determination to assist the Iraqi people.

With regard to the participation of troops from EU member states in Iraq, it should be noted that these forces are acting in a national capacity and are not representing the European Union. It is for individual member states to make decisions on the deployment of their troops. The EU has welcomed the capture of Saddam Hussein as a crucial step forward towards peace, stability and democracy in Iraq and in the region. It has called for a fair trial, according to the rule of law, so that justice is done. As I stated earlier, as did Deputy Andrews, the principles of the Geneva Convention must be applied to all prisoners. That also applies to prisoners of the Afghanistan war.

The EU and its member states contribute to the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq, IRFFI, administered by the United Nations Development Programme on behalf of the UN and participating UN agencies. The facility aims to help donors channel their resources and co-ordinate their support for reconstruction and development. These resources will be used to restore and strengthen the delivery of key public services, improve livelihoods, reduce poverty and strengthen governance, human rights and civil society. In addition to support for reconstruction activities, €100 million has been provided by the European Commission to Iraq for humanitarian relief.

As holder of the Presidency of the European Union, Ireland is pleased to join with other donors as a member of the Iraq reconstruction core group. This is a valuable opportunity to work closely with other donors to ensure that reconstruction efforts in Iraq are successful.

Ireland's humanitarian assistance to Iraq this year will be channelled through trusted partners such as UN agencies, international organisations and trusted non-governmental organisations, NGOs. At the Madrid donors' conference in October 2003, Ireland pledged up to €3 million in further assistance to Iraq in addition to the €5 million funding package for humanitarian programmes which was delivered in 2003.

The Government continues to face questions about Ireland's position in respect of the invasion of Iraq in March 2004. For Ireland and several other members of the EU, it was a matter of great regret that the Iraqi crisis reached a point where military conflict began. Both the Government and this House made that clear at the time of the invasion of Iraq. When Security Council Resolution 1441 was adopted, the council was acting in the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. We know now that no weapons were found.

I will conclude with a brief summary of the current situation with regard to all the issues involved and Ireland's position on them. The deal struck on 29 April in Falluja which involved the withdrawal of US marines to allow a newly created Iraqi security force to take control of the city has so far been successful. US troops remain in place around the city for the time being. However, fighting continues in the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala. In addition to fighting on the ground, coalition forces are also faced with the constant threat of terrorist attacks. The European Union has condemned these attacks which have caused so many deaths and I reiterate that condemnation. This current campaign of terrorist violence in Iraq is impeding the path to political progress and economic reconstruction in Iraq. It is doing no favours to the Iraqi people.

The Government is concerned at the recent reports of abuse in detention centres in Iraq. I categorically condemn such abuse. I reiterate the abhorrence expressed by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the abuse and degradation inflicted on Iraqi prisoners by members of the coalition military forces. The US and UK authorities have expressed their commitment to rectifying the situation and dealing with the perpetrators of abuse. I look forward to that happening at an early date.

The United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan's special adviser, Mr. Brahimi, said in a press conference in Baghdad on 14 April that the United Nations was confident an Iraqi caretaker government could be formed ahead of the transfer of power at the end of June to guide the country until free and fair elections are held in January 2005. On 27 April, following his report to the Secretary General Mr. Brahimi briefed the Security Council on his proposals.

The Government welcomes any resolution which gains requisite support at the United Nations and satisfies the concerns of the UN in its mission to Iraq. It must also be in keeping with the goal of seeing the earliest possible restoration of the sovereignty of Iraq and a democratically elected Iraqi Government.

The criminal conspiracy by the imperial powers, Britain and the United States, which was represented in the invasion of Iraq, was not out of any consideration for the Iraqi people but to seize control of Iraqi oil and establish a military bridgehead in the Middle East for these imperial powers. The invasion of Iraq was carried out on foot of a monstrous lie: the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction by the Hussein dictatorship. That lie was faithfully repeated by major sections of the capitalist media throughout the world and slavishly repeated by the Taoiseach, his Minister for Foreign Affairs and other members of the Government.

In front of the entire world, the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction has been blown away. The argument about bringing democratic standards and high moral standards to Iraq, an Iraq degraded by the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, now lies in the gutter of Abu Ghraib. It lies shattered in the same way as the moral degeneracy of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship was evident there.

The support for the United States-led occupation of Iraq, preferred and continued by the Irish Government, shames our people. It was against our will and the will of the majority. In the course of the Iraqi crisis, from before the invasion, through it and through the occupation, the Taoiseach has conducted himself like a political amoeba of the most primitive kind, without backbone, morality or conviction. Terrified of offending the Bush regime and certain big business interests around it in the United States of America, he has simply twisted and turned in front of their pressure, ignoring the wish of the majority of the Irish people.

The war crimes in Iraq for which the United States military is responsible stain the Irish Government, the parties in Government and the Deputies who went through the lobby to justify the use of Shannon Airport as a refuelling depot for the United States military. The excuse put forward that the assistance given in Shannon Airport amounted to nothing is an utterly hypocritical excuse. If those people were identified, would it be considered an inconsequential act to have refuelled the cars that came to the South 30 years ago, to blow innocent people to bits in the bombing of Dublin and Monaghan?

Inviting President Bush to Ireland in June is an affront to the oppressed people of Iraq and to those who have been killed, wounded or bereaved, as it is an affront to the suffering Palestinian people. Irish politicians who will welcome President Bush to Ireland and shake his bloody hand will dishonour the integrity of the Irish people who are revolted by the criminality of the United States and its invasion, occupation and abuse of prisoners. They are revolted by the United States support for criminality in Palestine. Irish people will turn out en masse in mass protests to disown any welcome for President Bush in Dublin on Friday, 25 June and in Shannon the next morning.

The so-called handover to an Iraqi Government at the end of June will be an utter fiction. The United Nations, equally in my view, has no credibility with the Iraqi people, having imposed the murderous sanctions that claimed an awful toll of victims in the course of the 1990s. The only solution is to end the occupation now. The future of Iraq and the Middle East should be democratically put into the hands of the Iraqi people and the people of the Middle East region in general. Islamic fundamentalism offers no way forward for the masses nor does clerical dictatorship that certain elements wish to impose in Iraq.

The demand for the withdrawal of the occupying forces should be linked to the building of democratic mixed militias, involving all the peoples and components of Iraq such as the Shias, the Sunni, the Kurds and the Turkomen. Democratic committees should be set up cutting across sectarian differences and cutting across those who would divide to rule Iraq. The fight is not only against military occupation but against the economic exploitation motivating the occupation, namely, the theft of the oil of the Iraqi people. These resources should be put under the democratic control of the Iraqi people and the people of the Middle East. A new future completely free from imperial intervention and interference could be established for the people of the region on the basis of the struggle for a democratic socialist Middle East in which its resources would be for the benefit of all.

Top
Share