Bernard Allen
Question:35 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he has taken to ensure no Irish facility has been used for the covert transfer of detainees or prisoners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39434/05]
Priority Questions.
State Airports.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:36 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s view on whether the concept of extraordinary rendition is an acceptable and lawful tool of implementation for the international campaign against terrorism. [39340/05]
John Gormley
Question:37 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the assurances given to the Government by the US Administration regarding extraordinary renditions of prisoners and possible involvement of Irish airports in the transit of these prisoners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39681/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 35 to 37, inclusive, together.
The Government is completely opposed to the practice of so-called "extraordinary rendition", whereby prisoners are transported from one jurisdiction to another contrary to international law and without recourse to the normal judicial checks and balances that attend the legitimate transfer of prisoners. That such a practice might have the aim of delivering a prisoner to a jurisdiction in which he or she might be tortured, or otherwise ill-treated, is disturbing and objectionable. The Government has not and will not permit any flight engaged in extraordinary rendition to pass through an Irish airport or through Irish or Irish-controlled airspace.
Deputies will be aware from my replies to previous parliamentary questions on this subject, most recently Parliamentary Question No. 151 of 8 December 2005, the United States has given Ireland repeated, clear and explicit assurances that no prisoners have been transferred through Irish airports, nor would they be, without our permission. These assurances were confirmed by the US Secretary of State, Ms Rice, at our meeting on 1 December. Suggestions have been made that these assurances may be qualified in some way by the definition of torture as applied by the US Government. The assurances we have received have contained no reference to the purposes for which any prisoners might be transferred which could be used to limit the broad scope of those assurances. In the wider European context, they are of particular clarity and completeness.
I have no reason to believe Irish airports have been used in the manner described by the Deputies. None of the allegations made about the passage through Irish airports of aeroplanes, supposedly involved in extraordinary rendition, has included any concrete or specific claim of this type.
In light of the absolute assurances received, the Government will continue to follow the long-standing practice whereby details supplied to the Department of Foreign Affairs in this area by the US authorities are accepted in good faith as being accurate. Should it ever emerge that, contrary to our firm belief, our airports or airspace have been used for the purpose of extraordinary rendition, the Government would take the gravest possible view of the matter.
Will the Minister agree there is serious disquiet, not only in Ireland, but in the EU, at the possibility of the existence of Guantanamo Bay type detention centres within the European Union? The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has also expressed its concerns; so much so, is the Minister aware it has invited the US ambassador to come before it? I ask the Minister to use his good offices with the ambassador to get an agreement from him to appear before the committee to provide some explanations.
If detention centres exist in the European Union, then they are in violation of the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Articles 6 and 7 of the Nice Treaty, member states housing such detention centres could have their voting rights within the Union withdrawn. Will the Minister make Ireland's views on this known to his EU counterparts?
Ms Rice, on her recent visit to Europe, said that some European countries had enjoyed the services of US intelligence agencies arising from US dealings with prisoners from Iraq. Has Ireland enjoyed these services in security and the prevention of terrorism matters?
As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I would not normally be aware of any matters relating to the last question. Ms Rice, in her discussions with me, made it clear that intelligence agencies across the world share information in the fight against terrorism. The US and other states expect that co-operation.
This question relates to flights while another relates to detention centres in Europe. The Government shares the concerns of the wider public in this regard. It is as a result of both the Ireland and Finland raising the issue at a recent EU meeting that Mr. Jack Straw, wrote on behalf of the EU to the US in advance of Ms Rice's visit to Europe. The issues of centres, so-called "black sites" and rendition and that European soil would not be used by the US for such purposes was raised at this level.
It is entirely a matter for the US ambassador to decide whether he should attend the committee. I had discussions with the ambassador before I travelled to the US to meet Ms Rice. I have had many other discussions with him and his officials previously on these issues.
Ireland was one of the first states, if not the very first, to raise the issue of extraordinary rendition when we became aware of it in the media. We decided to do this to assure ourselves and the public that this was not happening on our soil or in our airspace. Categoric assurances, without qualification, on the issue of extraordinary rendition and on torture have been given, which were confirmed by the US Secretary of State, Ms Rice, on my recent visit to the States. I raise the issue at every available fora. The EU undertook to raise the matter formally with the US as a result of Ireland and Finland raising the matter at EU level.
The aeroplane in question is a Gulfstream V, registered N8068V, and also registered under two separate enumerations, N379P and N44982, of which the Minister is aware. This 'plane landed at Shannon Airport several times. It has been proved to be involved in, what has been admitted by the US Secretary of State, Ms Rice, as an abduction by mistake, extraordinary rendition if one likes, of Khaled el-Masri. He is now taking a case in the US Federal Courts concerning his illegal and improper abduction. If the aeroplane was not involved in rendition, then is it not the action of a friendly country to explain what it was doing in Shannon Airport on the several occasions it landed?
On the Minister's comments on secret interrogations taking place, the Polish Government has changed its position and is holding an official inquiry into the possible presence of such interrogation systems within its jurisdiction. It is important to place on the record that when the Minister receives an assurance on torture, there is a real difficulty——
No. I received an assurance on rendition, on any account and unqualified.
I welcome the Minister's statement on the Government's position on rendition. The UN Convention Against Torture defines it as severe physical or mental pain or suffering and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, after the attacks of September 2001 the Justice Department in the United States narrowed the definition of torture to the infliction of pain comparable to "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death". This is a fundamental change in the definition. While the debate on whether the McCain Bill in the United States will be fully implemented is for another day, an assurance must cover the full scope of the United Nations convention.
This issue rolls back on to the question of rendition. Regarding the assurance the Minister obtained, is he satisfied the Government is in compliance with three levels of convention, namely, the United Nations Convention against Torture, the Council of Europe's convention on torture and the European Union's statements on the matter, to which the Minister referred? Is he confident about the assurance he received given the absence of inspections and the fact that the story has changed radically on several occasions? Members of the public seek random, regular inspections of the flights in question to ensure compliance with something stronger than the simple assurance the Minister secured.
The Deputy cites a number of conventions. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that there must be substantial proof of a real risk of a breach of rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. To date, despite media speculation, we have no substantial grounds in that respect. I do not rely only on the assurances I received but also on other sources, including Human Rights Watch which recently indicated it would be unlikely for the flights in question to pass through major civilian airports. In its submission, that organisation referred to a number of airports but not Shannon Airport.
I answered questions in the House on suggestions made in the media that Martin Scheinin, the United Nations rapporteur on human rights, had received reports or complaints. When officials from my Department contacted his office, they were informed Professor Scheinin had not received complaints and the only contact made with his office from Ireland had been from journalists inquiring whether he had received complaints. Professor Scheinin was in Ireland just last week and did not provide any information regarding an investigation by him.
I cite comments made by Dr. Tom Clonan, an expert on defence matters who frequently appears on RTE, during a recent interview on "Today with Pat Kenny". Referring to his visit to Guantanamo Bay, Dr. Clonan indicated that he had asked, off the record, whether any new detainees had arrived in Guantanamo and if they had travelled through Shannon Airport. He stated: "To be honest with you the informal, off-the-record view, in so much as I can accept it, is that the CIA would not actually use Shannon for the transit of cargo". He added that the CIA would be more likely to use secure military bases.
I reiterate my central point that it is long-standing practice to accept categoric, unqualified assurances of a friendly government, irrespective in this case of what was said subsequently during Condoleezza Rice's visit to Europe. Ms Rice stated that torture is torture no matter where it is committed and there are not two standards of torture as far as the US Administration is concerned.
Another parliamentary question submitted to me concerns undocumented Irish people in the United States, an issue which exercises most Deputies. I must negotiate with President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and all the leading Congressmen and politicians in the United States on this issue. Will I negotiate with them on this or any other issue relevant to US-Irish relations while, at the same time, indicating that we regard the assurances given by the US Government on Shannon Airport as misleading? It beggars belief that we would go behind the back of the US when we have a special relationship with it which we want to continue.
Without wishing to confuse the issue, Senator McCain, who is involved in helping undocumented Irish people in the United States, suffered torture and is anxious to ensure it is never practised at home or abroad on behalf of the United States. I put it to the Minister that the aeroplane which abducted Khalid al-Masri flew from Kabul to Shannon Airport on 17 December 2003 and from Shannon to Kabul on 13 August 2004.
Complaints have been registered in Shannon Airport. Is it not the case that the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that he will define Garda actions with regard to any suggestions about improper use of flights through Shannon? Is this not a factor?
On the issue of negotiating with the United States, while I accept the US is a friendly nation, what is wrong with random inspections if it has nothing to hide? It is not correct that this is a long-standing practice. The civilian aircraft involved are leased under commercial contract but are in fact leased by the CIA. There is no precedent for rendition practised through such aeroplanes and flights.
The information available to me indicates that such CIA flights have been taking place for a long time, certainly the past 50 years during which various political parties have been in Government here. Having received categoric assurances which a number of other European countries have been unable to secure on this issue, we cannot go behind them. If we were to do so, it would be regarded as unfriendly. I accept there is public disquiet on this matter but the Government has made clear its position. If evidence is found, it will be a matter for the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Government cannot order the Garda Síochána to investigate.
It is also a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Minister cannot order investigations which are entirely a matter for the DPP and the Garda.
What would be the position if the DPP were to be found to be obstructing an investigation?
While I share the concerns of citizens on this matter, I repeat the central point that unless and until there are substantial grounds as defined by the European Court of Human Rights, no investigation can take place.
Before I call Deputy Boyle, I should point out that on Question No. 37, Deputy Gormley, who submitted it, gave prior notice of his absence to the Office of the Ceann Comhairle and asked that Deputy Boyle substitute for him. As prior notice has been given, I call Deputy Boyle.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Deputy Gormley is indisposed. The Minister appears to have gone further today in his acceptance of US denials on the practice of rendition. Previously he stated publicly that a statement by the United States Government that rendition is not taking place would be sufficient. He appears also to have indicated that the US Government's definition of torture —"torture is torture is torture"— is acceptable to him. It has already been documented that the prisoners held without status in Guantanamo Bay are subject to isolation, deprivation and hooding, practices not regarded under any common definition of human rights as anything other than torture. If the Minister's definition coincides with that of the US Administration, the Government is in a difficult moral position.
I will go further. Does the Minister believe that the current US Administration has not at any time misled or given false information to the Government? During the current conflict in Iraq the US Government has been seen to do nothing but mislead the entire world on its objectives.
On the specific questions on the transit of particular aeroplanes associated with the practice of rendition which have been readily identified in airports throughout the world, will the Minister comment specifically on reports in the Swedish press concerning the abduction of two Egyptian citizens, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed Al Zery, on an aeroplane bearing the number N379P, subsequently identified as having stopped in Shannon Airport? Did the Minister and his Department become aware of these reports in Sweden? Did they make contact with the Swedish Government? Did the Minister discover whether any definition of flight paths coincided with Sweden and Ireland on that day?
Can the Minister explain why, of the 50 flights that have been identified by the Federal Aviation Authority in the United States as having arrived in Shannon, only 35 are recorded as having left? Does that mean there was a practice of secret flights coming in and out of Shannon? Is the Government aware of this and is it colluding in the practice of secret flights using Shannon? Is the Minister aware of the action being taken by the secretary general of the Council of Europe in invoking Article 52 of the council's human rights charter for only the eighth time in its history to investigate these allegations in several European countries?
Why is it that the Minister continues to believe that somehow Ireland is different and indifferent to what is happening in this situation? The opinion of New York University's college of law would seem to indicate that foreknowledge of——
Yes.
——and reluctance to become involved in asking questions and making inspections of flights puts this country in danger of being seen to collude in the practice of rendition because of our willingness to accept on face value the words of people and administrations that have shown themselves not to be credible on any of these issues.
On the last point, New York University prepared a study for the House of Commons which made quite clear that actual knowledge would be part of a state's assisting the issue of rendition. This State has no knowledge of these activities.
The Deputy referred to a so-called discrepancy. Yesterday, the Minister for Transport answered a question from Deputy Gormley about the particular planes that were identified as having passed through Shannon, stating that 43 of them had landed and 43 had taken off. Therefore there was no discrepancy in that regard. These are civilian aircraft out of approximately 9,000 civilian aircraft that landed in Shannon during that period.
These are American statistics from the Federal Aviation Authority in Washington.
We are running out of time for this question.
They are called pressure flights.
We can only relate to the statistics that we have for Shannon which were provided in the parliamentary question yesterday.
Basically, we know what we want to know.
What was the other issue the Deputy asked about?
I asked specifically about what has been reported in the Swedish media concerning the abduction of two Egyptian citizens and the flight number of a plane that was identified as having landed in Shannon. What efforts have been made by the Government to contact the Swedish Government about these reports?
At EU level generally we have raised the issue of abducting people and we have made it quite clear that we have not accepted it and do not or will not accept it. We will investigate any hard evidence that is brought to us, but to date no such evidence has been brought to us concerning the use of Shannon in any shape or form.
What about the flight numbers?
Unless and until that hard evidence is brought to us, we cannot investigate it. The Government is adamant that if it does get that hard evidence, it will be investigated and we will take serious action on foot of it.
The third question was about the Council of Europe.
We have answered the question from the Council of Europe and we will co-operate fully with any investigation. We will answer the questionnaire that has been submitted. It will be done on the previously stated basis.
I will allow a brief supplementary.
Has the Minister made it clear to his EU colleagues that if secret detention centres are detected within the European Union, Articles 6 and 7 of the Nice treaty will be invoked, and that any country hosting such detention centres will have their voting rights withdrawn?
Suspended.
We will have to cross that bridge when we come to it, but if there are black sites on EU soil, obviously the EU would have to consider seriously what action to take. We would be one of the first member states to raise this issue if there were proof of such sites.
Decentralisation Programme.
Bernard Allen
Question:38 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of senior development staff volunteering to decentralise with Development Co-operation Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39435/05]
Under the Government's decentralisation programme, the development co-operation directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs, currently based in Dublin, is scheduled to decentralise to Limerick in the first quarter of 2007. There are 123 posts attached to the directorate at headquarters, of which 24 are specialist posts, with three of these being designated as principal development specialists. No applications through the central applications facility, CAF, have been received for these three posts so far.
On the other hand, a combined total of eight senior development specialists and development specialists currently serving in the directorate have applied through the CAF for the 21 posts at these levels which are being decentralised to Limerick. In addition, four development specialists have been recruited since the announcement of the decentralisation programme.
In summary, therefore, arrangements are in place to fill 12 of the 24 specialist posts. It would be my hope that a greater number of specialists will volunteer to decentralise to Limerick as the date for the decentralisation of the directorate draws nearer.
The Minister said that the date for decentralisation is drawing near, but has a property been identified yet to house Development Co-operation Ireland, DCI? How does the Minister propose to deal with staff who will not transfer to Limerick and where will they be accommodated within the service? Does the Minister agree that in view of the substantial increase in overseas development aid, there is a serious danger of the intellectual memory of DCI being fatally damaged by this ill-planned decentralisation fiasco? Have any more senior specialists indicated their willingness to move since the Minister's junior colleague last dealt with these questions approximately a month ago?
There has been some media comment about the issue of the DCD transferring or decentralising to Limerick. Unfortunately, the references in the media are incorrect. The number of people wishing to decentralise is much higher than was reported. Some 46 people from within the Department——
Within the Department, but not DCI.
From within the Department.
That is a different matter.
Yes, from within the Department, but——
My question concerned staff from within DCI.
Many people within the Department have served abroad on overseas development aid issues. Out of 123 posts to be decentralised, however, 28 so far in the directorate, including that of the director general himself, are being filled by people who wish to decentralise. A further 18 officers serving elsewhere in the Department, mostly abroad on aid missions, have also expressed an interest in going to Limerick. A further 18 will join the directorate from other Departments via the CAF in January and February.
There has been a great deal of nonsense about this and I am surprised that someone like the Deputy, who is from outside Dublin, would be against decentralisation.
I am not against decentralisation. That is misrepresentation.
That is typical of the Deputy's party.
The Minister cannot answer the question.
He says one thing up here, but when he goes back home to Cork, he says something different.
Will the Minister answer the question?
At a recent conference in Dublin——
Does he even have a property?
I just want to illustrate——
Does he have a property?
——the whole concept of——
The Minister without interruption.
The Minister should answer the question.
Yes, there is a property.
Has it been purchased?
It will be leased.
Has it been leased?
Yes. They are in negotiations with the people involved.
It has not been leased. The Minister knows that.
We now have an identifiable property.
It has not been leased.
Now that we have the property, many more people will be willing to relocate to Limerick. The concept of DCI or the DCD going to Limerick is important. At a conference in Dublin some months ago, Mr. Richard Manning, who was the chair of the development assistance committee of the OECD, was asked this very question as to his attitude to the proposal to decentralise to Limerick. His reply was very interesting.
He said, regarding decentralisation, that he was reluctant to get involved in a local issue. However, he wished to relate a story from the UK. In 1991, his organisation had set up an office in Bangladesh to run its programme there. To make it financially possible — he was the director for Asia at the time — he moved all staff in London who dealt with Bangladesh to that country. Parliamentary questions regarding the Bangladesh programme were dealt with by the unit in Dhaka, and it worked very well.
He went on to say that he personally believed that with modern technology and plenty of coming and going, almost any situation was possible. He said that what we faced in Ireland was a transitional problem of how we wanted to get there. There was clearly an issue for staff used to living in a particular part of the country who did not want to move. They had the same problem in the UK when they set up an office in Scotland.
Deputy Allen wants me to stop, but the truth is sometimes bitter.
Not at all. The Minister is filibustering now.
He thought that we needed to distinguish the very real problems and need for flexibility in the short term from the ability of any country to set up a world-class office anywhere at once these days.
The Minister is obviously filibustering. I asked specific questions.
I am delivering the truth.
Of the seven senior specialist positions in DCI at present, how many people have indicated that they would like to be decentralised to Limerick? Will the Minister agree that no property has been bought or leased in the area for decentralisation?
No, the Deputy is wrong. I am not aware of whether the money has been transferred, but it has identified, and to all intents and purposes acquired, a property.
Has the Minister had any recent discussions with non-governmental organisations regarding this fiasco? Will he publish the most recent risk assessment conducted of decentralisation? The Minister should not use the trick of pretending that I am against decentralisation. I am in favour or well thought-out and well planned decentralisation, but the madcap idea that he has presented to us regarding DCI is totally unacceptable and will severely damage the delivery and effectiveness of the overseas development aid programme.
I recall the famous case of Knock Airport, completely opposed by Deputy Allen's party, which said that it was on top of a boggy mountain. Today it is a great success, and they must answer to the people of Knock in that regard.
The Minister should answer the question put to him.
Let us proceed to Question No. 39.
I believe that no one is indispensable, and it is possible to run an organisation——
How many of the seven specialists——
——in Limerick, just as it is in Dublin.
Let us proceed to Question No. 39.
That is where the Deputy and I differ. It is the case that, regarding the senior management team, none of the existing people has applied. However, there are ten principal officers from elsewhere in the public and Civil Service who are willing, meaning that there is plenty of scope. This will probably be one of the success stories, since we have now acquired a building, and a high proportion of people are interested in going to Limerick.
Let us proceed to Question No. 39.
What about the risk assessment report? Has an up-to-date survey been conducted?
The Chair has called Question No. 39.
That is also an issue on which I will get back to the Deputy. I am not aware of that.
Conventional Weapons.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:39 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the basis used for his expression of concern to the US Embassy at the use of white phosphorus in Iraq; the adequacy of the response which he received on foot of this communication; the position on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39341/05]
The Government strongly opposes any use of chemical weapons, which is of course contrary to international law. We likewise strongly oppose the use of any conventional weapons in a manner contrary to international law.
My concern on the issue was aroused by several media reports last month which alleged that weapons banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention, CWC, had been used by US forces in Iraq in the attack on Falluja in November 2004, and that it had led to many civilian casualties. At the same time, it was reported that the US authorities had admitted that information previously given to journalists regarding the use of white phosphorus had not been accurate. It was against that background that I asked my Department to seek clarification from the US Embassy in Dublin to ascertain the actual position.
The embassy confirmed that US forces had used white phosphorus munitions in Iraq, both to create smokescreens and as incendiary weapons against defended positions. It said that the US characterises white phosphorus as a conventional munition and a standard part of its arsenal.
A spokesperson for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, which implements the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, was quoted in media reports as suggesting that the weapons concerned were not prohibited by the convention. The Government then sought clarification direct from the OPCW. The response was that white phosphorus is regarded as an incendiary weapon and that since incendiary weapons achieve their intended effect through the release of thermal energy, or heat, they would not fall within the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention. While that clarifies the international legal position on the status of white phosphorus, it does not, of course, alleviate concerns about the use of conventional munitions, including white phosphorus, in areas where civilians are present.
As a conventional weapon, white phosphorus falls under the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, more commonly known as the CCW Convention, which came into force in 1983. Protocol III of that convention deals directly with prohibitions and restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons.
That protocol prohibits in all circumstances making the civilian population the object of attack by incendiary weapons. It also prohibits making any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of an attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
With regard to the delivery of such weapons by ground forces, there is a requirement that such a military objective be clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and that all feasible precautions be taken to avoid or minimise the incidental loss of civilian life.
While the US has signed the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, it is not party to Protocol III of the convention. However, the US Embassy, in confirming that white phosphorous was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants, has stated that suggestions that civilians have been targeted with these weapons are wrong. The embassy has also stated that US forces in Iraq go to extreme lengths to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure that civilians are not put in harm's way during their operations.
The Government has clearly and consistently expressed the view, before, during and after the events in Falluja, that every possible effort must be made to keep to a minimum the use of force in built-up areas, and to avoid civilian casualties. I believe all of us in the House are deeply concerned about the events there. The Government of Iraq has announced that it is sending a team to Falluja to investigate the circumstances in which incendiaries were used in that battle. We look forward to the outcome of that investigation.
My question did not confine itself to the convention banning the use of chemical weapons. White phosphorous is an incendiary weapon. As the Minister pointed out, under Article 2 of Protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons it is specifically banned in areas where there are civilians. The basis for my tabling this question was the suggestion in the first instance that it had been used simply for illumination and then that it had been used against military combatants. In neither of those early statements was reference made to the fact that it had been used adjacent to civilians.
Frankly, it is extremely clear that it is not correct to say that white phosphorous never falls within the Chemical Weapons Convention. By definition, if white phosphorous is used against civilians or close to them, it falls within the convention's ambit. In other words, it depends on the manner of its use. Regarding how it was used, we got a straightforward denial followed by a qualified statement that it had been used for illumination. Then came a suggestion that it had been used for military purposes, and we had a string of denials that it had been used in Falluja, a town of 300,000 people where no effort had been made to ensure that the civilian population would not be affected. That is the reason for my question. It is incredible to think that white phosphorous, which burns on a person's skin and continues to burn, and which can be released into wounds and so forth, should have been used in such conditions in a civilian area.
If that is the kind of statement that we get on white phosphorous in Iraq, how can the Minister unconditionally accept such assurances as he receives on other matters?
We raised with the OPCW the definition of white phosphorous and whether it was a chemical weapon. It confirmed that it was not since it did not fall within that convention's ambit. However, at the same time, I fully empathise with the Deputy's view regarding the use of such weapons in circumstances where civilians are involved. We raised this issue with the US Embassy. There were media reports on the issue and the embassy confirmed that, while it had been used, that was against enemy combatants. They said that any suggestion that it had been used against civilians was completely wrong.
Does the Minister believe them?
I go on to say that they stated that forces in Iraq went to extreme lengths to ensure that everything possible was done to keep civilians out of harm's way. Regarding Falluja, I believe that there were in the region of 300,000 there.
Yes.
After appeals to the civilian population to leave the area, approximately 30,000 people remained. It raises concerns regarding this issue, but when we first became aware of the use of phosphorous and the way in which it was used, we raised those issues with the US Embassy.
I appreciate the Minister raising it with the United States embassy but I also asked about the degree to which he is satisfied with the response and where we go from here on this issue. Apart from the convention banning the use of chemical weapons, there are clear breaches of international law, including breaches of the protocol to the Geneva Convention regarding the protection of civilians. Will the Department follow up that matter? In regard to Protocol III of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Weapons, which is a more general convention, it is frankly unacceptable that one can say there were 300,000 civilians, we asked them to leave, 30,000 remained and therefore we broke international law straightforwardly in using these horrific weapons against a population that was overwhelmingly civilian. The final part of my question concerned the satisfaction or otherwise of the Minister, his Department and the Government with the reply they got and whether they intend, for example, to pursue the issue of other clear breaches of international law, specifically the Geneva Convention and the protection of civilians.
We are going back over old ground in regard to the assurances about Shannon. We accept the same assurances that the Deputy accepted when he was a member of a Government——
No, not at all.
——in respect of the use of Shannon. That has been the case for 50 years.
No, it is not the case.
Regarding the use of Shannon and infringement of any——
Not in relation to leaks by the CIA about extraordinary rendition.
——international human rights, the Deputy was a member of a Government that accepted that.
Yes, I was, and if I was a member of a Government I would have inspections.
I am glad the Deputy clarified that.
I am clarifying it and I am also clarifying the issue regarding white phosphorous. I believe in the application of international law.
If the Deputy asks a question he should let me finish. I will not take double standards from the likes of Deputy Higgins, depending on the side of the House he sits on.
They are not double standards. I assure the Minister that if he makes an allegation it will be replied to.
Order, please.
A Government in which I was or would be a member would not support extraordinary rendition in the way the Minister is doing.
We are not——
Yes, you are.
The Minister to conclude.
We have made it clear that——
If the plane begins and ends its journey there and the Minister knows that, what happens in between is his responsibility.
Deputy Higgins, we have made it clear that we condemn extraordinary rendition and we will not allow this State to be party to it.
(Interruptions).
We have said that and we have also said that we are against the use of chemical weapons in conflicts such as that in Iraq. Regarding the question the Deputy asked, we have raised the issue of the use of white phosphorous in the only way we can — with the United States through our diplomatic channels, and they have said clearly that they have not used white phosphorous specifically against civilians.
The Minister can raise the issue under a breach of the Geneva Convention.