JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jul 2003

Vol. 1 No. 28

Iraq: Presentation.

Chairman

At our last meeting we heard from UNICEF and the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding the current humanitarian situation in Iraq. At that meeting we were given an excellent update on the humanitarian situation, the difficulties there due to, among other things, inadequacies in power supplies, clean water and health services and the measures undertaken by UNICEF and Ireland Aid to alleviate the hardships being suffered by a great proportion of the population. At the end of the meeting members had asked that additional briefing on the political situation in Iraq be requested from the Department of Foreign Affairs. As the matter is urgent and as this may be the last occasion on which we will meet formally before the summer break, the Department of Foreign Affairs has kindly agreed to provide this briefing. In that context I welcome to the joint committee Mr. Tony Mannix, who is in charge of the Middle East section in the Department of Foreign Affairs and is also a former ambassador to Iran, Mr. Keith McBain and Mr. Paul Gunning.

The political difficulties in Iraq are currently being eclipsed by who knew what, where and when about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All of this was inevitable when these weapons failed to materialise. The casualties of war are not confined to the immediate theatre of that war and unfortunately we saw the tragic truth of that in recent days. Exaggeration can give strength to one's viewpoint but it can also be dangerous. When dealing with the lives of others we must be measured in our statements.

The Government strongly supported the UN position in the lead up to the war and continually maintained that the UN solution to the problem was the way forward. The Minister for Foreign Affairs made that clear when he was before this committee some weeks ago. He also said that the best way forward now is to give the UN a central role in putting together a proper system of governance in Iraq.

Yesterday I met with Dr. Maura O'Donoghue of the Medical Missionaries of Mary who has recently returned from Iraq. She has worked there on and off over many years. Speaking about what she had observed in Iraq she talked inter alia about the lack of resources in the medical field there, the poor clean water supply, infrastructural inadequacies and the security inadequacies for the protection of ordinary Iraqis and for those working with the non-governmental organisations. She said, however, that currently food supplies were more than adequate to meet the needs of the population. Overall, she was hopeful that the Iraqi people would overcome this ordeal in the short to medium term. She believed, however, that effective administration and good governance is the key to the peaceful reconstruction of Iraq.

The non-Dublin resident Arab ambassadors had also given that message to us during an informative and interesting meeting with them last week. While it is too early yet to say how the new council of Iraqi leaders will fare, every effort should be made to give this body the help that it needs to return that country to a position in which the public and infrastructural needs of the citizens are met and in which ordinary citizens can take control of their lives. The best way to help to achieve these ends is to give the UN a central role to assist in any way it can. It is comforting to see that the UN Secretary General has welcomed the new Iraqi council as the first step on the road to full democracy in Iraq. While the death of anybody, no matter how cruel he or she may have been, is not to be celebrated, the reported deaths of the sons of Saddam Hussein yesterday will probably weaken the resolve of Saddam loyalists and that must be welcomed.

I now invite Mr. Mannix to update the committee on the political situation in Iraq. When he has finished his presentation I will open the discussion to members of the committee. I remind the meeting that while members are covered by privilege, others appearing before the committee are not.

Mr. Tony Mannix

Thank you. It is a pleasure for me to be here again. I am sorry we were unable to participate in the committee's last meeting. There are only a few of us dealing with Iraq and unfortunately we were all away on the particular day. However, we are at the committee's disposal today. I will begin by setting out the current situation in Iraq and in doing so I hope to respond to the various questions and concerns of members of the committee.

UN Resolution 1483 sets out the arrangements for the current administration of Iraq. It recognises the specific authorities, responsibilities and obligations under international law of the occupying powers. It appoints a special representative of the UN Secretary General who has wide ranging responsibilities in respect of the post-conflict situation in Iraq. It stresses the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own political future and control their own natural resources and it supports the formation of an interim administration until the people of Iraq establish an internationally recognised representative government.

The resolution lays down regulatory procedures for the development fund for Iraq which has been set up by the coalition provisional authority. In particular, it requires that the fund be used for the benefit of the people of Iraq and that it be under the supervision of an international advisory and monitoring board. This body will include representatives of the Secretary General and the IMF, the World Bank, the UNDP and the Arab fund for social and economic development. Under Resolution 1483 all oil sales are to be consistent with prevailing international market best practices, and funds are to be deposited in the development fund for Iraq whose assets can be used only for defined purposes. This fund will receive 95% of all Iraq's oil revenues. The remaining 5% is to be retained in the UN compensation fund set up in the aftermath of the first Gulf War.

The resolution sets out the procedures by which the oil for food programme will be brought to a close. It also ends all sanctions against Iraq except those related to arms. This resolution sets out the framework under which Iraq will be administered until such time as the Iraqi people are in a position to form a representative government of their own choosing. The Irish Government welcomes the fact that Resolution 1483 has taken the right of the Iraqi people to a representative government as a starting point in its consideration of the future. The Security Council will keep the matter under continuing review.

Crucial to this is the appointment of the Secretary General's special representative in Iraq. He has been given a mandate which ensures the involvement of the United Nations in the reconstruction of the country. His independent responsibilities include reporting regularly to the Security Council, co-ordinating activities of the United Nations in post-conflict processes in Iraq and co-ordinating United Nations and international agencies engaged in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. He will also, in co-ordination with the occupying powers, assist the people of Iraq in all of the key activities which will be required for the physical and political reconstruction of the country.

Iraq is administered at present by the occupying powers known as the Coalition Provisional Authority. On 13 July 2003 the Authority appointed a governing council of 25 members which is intended as a first step towards an Iraqi interim administration. This step has been welcomed by the EU and by Kofi Annan. The next step which is envisaged is the appointment of interim ministers. The Council will also be taking steps to establish a constitutional conference. The situation on the ground in Iraq still gives rise to concern. There is little security for Iraqis or international aid workers. United States forces continue to come under attack. There are indications that some of these attacks are the work of organised groups rather than isolated individuals. All this has led to tension including incidents in which innocent civilians have been mistakenly killed. An Iraqi army is now being formed.

To date, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. This fact, together with questions about the quality of intelligence, has led to controversy in Britain and the United States. The Irish Government never relied on intelligence coming from other governments but as we did not have national means of surveillance of our own we relied on the Security Council and on the reports of the arms inspectors which it mandated. It was their task to investigate Iraq's compliance with Security Council decisions that Iraq disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction.

The original Security Council decision to deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was contained in Resolution 687 adopted on 3 April 1991. In this resolution the Security Council issued a direct order to Iraq. The resolution decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all research development support and manufacturing facilities as well as ballistic missiles. The council further ordered Iraq to make a full declaration of all its holdings of weapons and related facilities. The resolution went on to decide the setting up of a special commission to implement that task. This commission, UNSCOM, was mandated together with the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's nuclear, biological chemical and missile capabilities.

The resolution also ordered that Iraq yield possession of all the listed weapons of mass destruction and related items to the special commission. In adopting Resolution 687 the Security Council was acting under chapter 7 of the UN Charter which mandates the council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace and it decides what measures shall be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security. These measures may include the use of armed force. This chapter is about enforcement. Accordingly, the Security Council invokes it only in the most serious circumstances when it believes there is a threat to international peace and security and that it must act to remove that threat.

As members of this committee are well aware, states are obliged under Article 25 of the UN Charter to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. In the subsequent years the Security Council had no reason to change its position on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and it did not do so. Over time, and in the face of severe difficulties, UNSCOM discovered significant quantities of weapons of mass destruction. However, because of the Iraqi regime's deliberate obstruction UNSOM was unable to complete its task. In the following years the Council adopted resolution after resolution under chapter 7 in an effort to bring about Iraqi compliance.

In 1998, UNSCOM withdrew from Iraq and was never readmitted. On 27 January 1999 UNSCOM reported back to the Security Council. Its finds were most unsatisfactory. UNSCOM complained that Iraq's disclosure statements had never been complete, that it had undertaken extensive secret - and, therefore, unverifiable - destruction of large quantities of weapons, that it had limited its disclosures for the purpose of retaining substantial prohibited weapons and capabilities, that it concealed proscribed items, that it had misled the commission, and that it had been impossible to verify Iraq's claims that it had complied with its disarmament obligations. Thus, Iraq failed to account for large quantities of proscribed war material, including missile production and warheads, huge numbers of chemical bombs, artillery shells filled with mustard gas, bacteriological bombs, tonnes of nerve gas, chemical weapons production equipment and its biological warfare programme.

The UNSCOM report correctly pointed out that the system established by the Security Council imposed an obligation of full disclosure upon Iraq and that it was for UNSCOM to verify those disclosures, not the other way around. The Security Council set up a special panel to consider the situation and make proposals on how the issues could be dealt with. These proposals ultimately gave rise to UNMOVIC, which was established by UN Security Council Resolution 1284 in December 1999. This resolution once again made clear the Security Council's concerns about Iraq's holdings of weapons of mass destruction. It set up UNMOVIC to replace UNSCOM.

The Council adopted Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002. This resolution recognised the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, posed to international peace and security. On foot of this, the Council decided that Iraq has been and remained in material breach of its obligations. The Council decided to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing the disarmament process to full and verified completion. It is worth noting that this position of the Security Council was welcomed by the EU General Affairs Council on 18-19 November 2002. Despite the deep divisions among some member states about how the problem should be handled, there was no doubt about the nature of the problem. In their conclusions, the ministers spoke three times of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and said the European Union's policy towards Iraq had a clear objective -disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The report delivered by Dr. Blix to the Security Council on 27 January 2003 was disturbing and raised the most serious concerns about a number of unanswered questions about Iraq's weapons holdings, as did later reports up to the present day. In particular, Dr. Blix gave his judgment that Iraq had not come to a genuine acceptance of disarmament and was not co-operating satisfactorily on the substance. He set out a whole series of areas where the Iraqi declaration on its weapons programmes was incomplete or unsubstantiated. The Iraqis, for instance, were known to be in possession of well documented quantities of weapons. It was up to Iraq to provide evidence to back its claim that it had destroyed these weapons and not for the inspectors to prove the contrary, as Dr. Blix made clear.

Among the many unaccounted for weapons which Dr. Blix listed were 6,500 chemical bombs containing 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent, holdings of VX nerve gas precursors and huge quantities of anthrax as well as numbers of Scud missiles and other prohibited missiles. Ireland's own expert committee reached the same conclusion based on its analysis of the report, which was made available to the members of the Security Council.

Shortly afterwards, in a speech on 8 February, Kofi Annan said:

Unfortunately, Iraq has still not complied with all the obligations it accepted in 1991 under the terms of the ceasefire. In particular, it has not yet satisfied the Security Council that it has fully disarmed itself of weapons of mass destruction.

That is the set of beliefs on which the Security Council, with its composition of membership, acted over a dozen years and which is incorporated in numerous chapter 7 resolutions.

In conclusion, Chairman, it has been pointed out that even if those weapons are never found, Iraq was still in material breach of its disarmament obligations through its failure to co-operate fully with the arms inspectors in carrying out their mandate of verifying that Iraq was no longer in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

I thank you, Chairman, and members of the committee for your patience. I hope this presentation will have been of some help to you.

Deputy G. Mitchell

I join in welcoming Mr. Mannix and his colleagues to today's meeting. I do not know if other members of the committee have read the speech made by Senator Edward Kennedy in the past week. I was sent an advance copy and I presume other members were too. I recommend that it be circulated, Chairman. If any member of this committee was to make such a speech they would be accused of anti-Americanism. In fact, however, it is not anti-American but anti-unilateralism. It is full of common sense and states how the US, Europe and others can win the peace, not just the war.

I note Mr. Mannix's comments about the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons but I hope others on the committee feel, as I do, that it is regrettable that a 14 year old boy also died in those circumstances.

Senator Norris

Hear, hear.

Deputy G. Mitchell

I wonder if that amount of force was necessary. I do not know because we do not have people on the ground there. The first casualty of war is always truth. I wish the European Union was more involved, even though it had no cause in starting the conflict in Iraq.

I wish to ask Mr. Mannix if the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the EU, which met on Monday and Tuesday this week, raised the issue of the future governance of Iraq - not just the humanitarian issues? The EU has a rapid reaction force and the Petersberg Tasks include peace enforcement and humanitarian aid. Has the EU made any effort to become involved in restoring some sort of stable government in Iraq? It seems that the whole thing is going up and down like a yo-yo. As the reports we are getting are unreliable there needs to be some independent assessment by the European Union. Our EU Presidency is coming up in five months and this will be an issue. We are involved in the region generally, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian question and the Middle East road map. What role will there be for the EU and what discussions took place on Monday and Tuesday about that?

I would ask that Senator Kennedy's speech be circulated to members of the committee because it is inspiring and revealing.

Chairman

Thank you, Deputy, we will do that.

Deputy M. Higgins

I respect Mr. Tony Mannix's presentation in relation to the UN resolutions but I have to tell him straight out that I reject his interpretation of them. The long list of resolutions dealing with Iraq includes Resolution 687, which he mentioned, but there has been considerable debate in the Security Council and elsewhere about a fundamental concept upon which, unfortunately, our Department of Foreign Affairs and others were silent. Was any UN resolution passed that conferred automaticity in relation to a military strike? Mr. Mannix should address that question because it was debated at the Security Council. For example, in a discussion on 23 September 1998, the issue of implied authorisation was debated following Operation Desert Fox. The United Kingdom and the United States had argued that resolution 1205, one of those derived in quoting Resolution 687, implicitly revived the authorisation of the use of force contained in Resolution 678, which is the one dealing with the period after the invasion of Kuwait. The argument is that one cannot argue and sustain in international legal terms an automaticity running through Resolution 687 from the cessation of events that were dealt with in Resolution 678. The matter was debated at the 3930 meeting of the Security Council on 23 September 1998 when the majority of states speaking in the debate argued that the use of force by the United Kingdom and the United States under the purported authorisation of Resolutions 678, 1154 and 1205 "was unlawful". The issue arises because it is not an academic matter.

On weapons of mass destruction, in a valuable summary in The Sunday Business Post last week Pat Leahy quotes references on the Dáil record, some of which were in answer to questions by myself and others. In the case of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 29 January in the Dáil, the position of Ireland, which would ultimately lead to permission to use Shannon, was based on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Again there was a reference to them on 1 July. The Taoiseach spoke of them in the Dáil on 29 January and on 4 February. The Minister for Defence spoke about them on 11 February. On 11 March and 20 March, the Taoiseach again spoke about the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

I am pleased to hear that the Irish position was not based on intelligence gathered from Britain and the United States but neither is what Mr. Mannix said based on a full account of what took place in the Security Council. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said to me on more than one occasion in the Dáil that the jury is out on the issue of authenticity. That led to Ireland taking no clear position, no more than it took an unequivocal position which, I am afraid, contaminated the diplomacy in the Department of Foreign Affairs and revealed it as operating under an explicit political direction, that is, on the principle of pre-emption. If he quotes resolutions to me, I will not delay on them but simply say that if we are supporting the UN, we are bound by the Charter; if he mentions chapter 7, and he mentioned Articles 25 and 52, they clearly lay down grounds about a clear and imminent danger. My question last week remains the same this week: from where did the suggestion come that there were weapons of mass destruction in existence that threatened Iraq's neighbours and countries at an enormous distance? That sensitive soul, the Minister for Defence, put it this way: "The international community can no longer allow the shadow of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction hang over the world. . . . .The world is watching with bated breath, with a clear resolve that it will no longer tolerate a dictator threatening the world with these terrible weapons." They cannot run away from the fact.

The briefing note states there is controversy in the United Kingdom and in the United States. There is more than controversy. There is the belief that the public, Parliament and Congress were misled and that it is no role for any body, whether intelligence or whoever, to provide information that will be offered in a parliament that is proven to be false without seriously damaging the credibility of that parliament.

This is not an academic matter. The matter is the question put. How did Mr. Mannix come to put such weight on that issue of weapons of mass destruction that enabled him to have an Irish Government provide facilities for a strike on Iraq outside of a UN resolution? I do not deny a word of the resolutions quoted by Mr. Mannix, but he should remember that in every one of them there is this phrase which he will know better than me, that the Security Council decides to "remain seized of the situation". In every one of the resolutions he quotes the understanding was that before there would be a military strike there would be a return to the Council. There was no return to the Council and there was not a second resolution, and yet we facilitated the war by providing facilities at Shannon. Mr. Mannix must answer the question. If he says we were sold a pup, that is one thing. Frankly, I believe that from quite early on there were no conditions that we would have imposed on the use of Shannon. We have had this out in another place and we can use theories of interests and other issues related to international law and humanitarian issues.

I will summarise this part of what I have been saying as follows. There is a question to be answered and international law is not with you. There was not an international jurist of note who would support what Mr. Mannix has said on the question that you could launch a military strike on breach of resolutions, even if they were under chapter 7. I contest Mr. Mannix's reading of chapter 7 because chapter 7 is conditional on compliance with the Charter and the existence of clear and imminent danger. If he were to argue that, the requirement would be on him to prove it.

I asked a question last week which I would like to have answered this week which goes beyond this question of whether there is controversy or anxiety in the United States and Britain about it. On what Mr. Mannix is suggesting about the role of the Iraq Development Fund into which Iraqi oil revenues will go, reference was made last week by some of Mr. Mannix's colleagues in the humanitarian section to a meeting that took place on 24-25 June in Oman. I quoted from that meeting last week. There it became clear that the existing military cost was running at about $3.2 billion per month and that perhaps Iraqi oil revenues would not become available until the end of 2004. I quoted Mr. Paul Bremner's suggestion that $4 billion worth of oil options could be sold from Iraq in advance to meet the shortfall of what was necessary for the reconstruction programme. I am sure Mr. Mannix will agree that this would be illegal and he will find no capacity for it in Resolution 1483.

I also quoted Mr. Bremner's further statements in which he mentioned 40 companies in which he envisaged privatisation would be very effective. I gave the figure and the company, which is an off-shoot of Halliburton, which has secured the contract for the restructuring of the Iraqi economy on private enterprise and market lines. What is the view of the Department on the Oman conference and the statements made at it? Does Mr. Mannix agree that these kinds of proposals are in accordance with any UN resolution?

I have never made any statements in support of Saddam's regime. I have heard people ask, "Is not everybody glad he is gone?" Of course we are. Some of us opposed him when other people were not opposing him back in Halabja. There was reference to Halabja in the speeches of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and in some of the briefing notes supplied to this committee. It is a minor point. On what evidence did the Department come to a conclusion about Halabja? Chemical gas was used by Iraq and Iran. We knew even then that those who were supplying the materials for that were members of the European Union but we did not express very much concern at that stage.

Returning to Mr. Mannix's selective quotation of Hans Blix's report, in an interview Hans Blix has recently said about weapons of mass destruction, "so certain of their existence, so uncertain of their whereabouts". On what basis could the Irish Government continue to facilitate a strike against Iraq with Hans Blix and his team not allowed to finish their task? Was Resolution 1441 allowed to be worked out, with its explicit reference to the role of the inspectors and the role of the Security Council and the General Secretary of the United Nations, and was the Department not concerned about that?

This so-called update states that the trustees of the Iraq Development Fund include the IMF and the World Bank, but Mr. Mannix failed to say that it cannot take any decision, no more than the interim council to which he makes reference, and that the final decisions will be taken by Mr. Paul Bremner. Why not say that because it is the truth? It is just a fact and we are a committee that deals with the facts upon which Government policy, and our own response to it, is based.

I note that Mr. Mannix does not address the issue of security. There are several levels of security in Baghdad. Most of those who have been awarded reconstruction contracts have hired private security firms. However, the biggest absence of security affects the ordinary civilians in Baghdad. In turn, they are most affected by the absence of electricity supply, which is damaged by looting, etc. Electricity is needed to purify the water. Can we have figures on the risks to children to see whether they have decreased or increased and so forth?

The briefing note states that 39 US and six British soldiers have been reported killed since 1 May. Their parents have my sympathies as they were youngsters. There are no authoritative figures for Iraqi causalities in the same period, but all the indications are that they are considerably higher. Are they higher than the figure of 39 US soldiers? I have asked at this committee for estimates for civilian casualties since this war started. Getting an accurate figure is compounded by the difficulty of some people not brining causalities to the morgues. It is a humanitarian concern and this committee wants to hear the figures for these too.

The truth must now come out about the reconstruction. We cannot wipe it away and just say we will now concentrate on humanitarian relief. Although I am in favour of concentrating on humanitarian relief, I am not in favour of it being used as a screen for the basis of decisions taken on substantive matters, including weapons of mass destruction.

The humanitarian involvement of the UN is crucial. I hope the UNDP in the three Kurdish governorates in northern Iraq are still functioning and distributing food. What was put in place of the 42,000 retail establishments that distributed food in central and southern Iraq? What are the present and projected arrangements there now? UN agencies are anxious to retain the integrity of their autonomous action without being absorbed as the tail of a military action. If a resolution was to appear after Resolution 1483, let us discuss what options would then be there. Would such a resolution ex post facto legalise a decision taken without an enabling resolution of the UN Security Council? If it does not do so, how is it to do so? I am not asking you to resolve a debate that may have no answer at the moment. There are those in the US who do not want an enhanced UN role. How can a resolution be passed? You say the sanctions are ending. I welcome this but what new food distribution mechanisms is there in Iraq?

Mr. Mannix correctly described UN Resolution 1483's explicit conditions for the sale of oil but what of the suggestion that the major 50 oil pumping installations have been looted and will not be in a position to sell oil until the end of 2004? What is our Government's view on that shortfall? Does you believe that the cost of the military presence at €3.2 billion per month will continue? Does the Government believe that humanitarian aid should be a supplement to that? Is it the Government's position that the US and the occupying forces should acknowledge the role of the UN in a fuller sense? Is the Government pressing for that? Did it do so at last evening's meeting of the UN Security Council? What is at stake in all of this is that this country does not have any controversy about this.

Many people have a deep anger at the questions that have not been answered. Many people have a deep concern that politics and diplomacy have been deeply damaged by what has gone on and nothing less than the detailed outlining of options is what this committee wants. We can all get news reports from the Internet. However, what options are being considered by the Irish Government to these issues I have mentioned - the weapons of mass destruction controversy, the humanitarian issue, the future structures and the future administration of Iraq? We want to discuss these in anticipation of such policies as the Government may take. Then we will not end up in the ridiculous position of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs making statements to the Dáil, on the record, that have been proved not to have a basis and that are embarrassing not only to them but to politics.

Senator Kitt

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the current situation in Iraq. Deputy Gay Mitchell made the point of winning the peace in the Middle East. There is considerable tension there, not just in Iraq but also in the US relations with Syria and Iran. I look forward to hearing Mr. Mannix's views on this from the international relations perspective and how it can be tackled.

I spoke to some business people who were in Iraq on a number of occasions this year. They have expressed some concerns about the delay in the setting up a provisional government. They have also expressed concern that there seem to be few decisions made in any department as there are no heads of departments.

While I welcome what Mr. Mannix said about the setting up of a new Iraqi army, what about the setting up of a police force? What Deputy Michael Higgins said about private security companies being set is a worry to me. What is happening in this area? The chronic lack of funds is preventing the administrative changes taking place more quickly.

I have seen reports that oil and gas pipelines have been bombed five times in the past few weeks. These are important installations that should be protected. What is being done about this? I was informed by an Iraqi citizen living in Ireland that her family only have electricity for two hours a day. The water supply is also badly affected and contaminated. Those are the issues that should be dealt with first. At this time of the year, when temperatures are in the region of 45 and 46 degrees Celsius, it is difficult for elderly people to cope. Why cannot airlifts of water and food supplies be brought in when the situation is bad? I have heard claims that there is much food available. However, this is not the information I have received from Iraqis studying and working in Ireland. These are practical issues that need to be addressed.

The casualty and death rates among the coalition forces are dreadful. There was much publicity about Saddam's two sons and a young relative being killed. However, this does not matter much to the people of Iraq. The practical and humanitarian issues are now the main concern for Iraqis. I regret that since the fall of Saddam, the media has left Iraq. I hope the media will examine these issues again because they are significant and must be addressed in a post-war scenario. It is a matter for us all to ensure these matters are properly addressed and I hope they will be dealt with quickly.

Deputy T. Dempsey

The Department's briefing document states: "Resistance to the US/UK occupation continues with 39 US and six British soldiers killed." That is a tragedy for everybody but it is also a tragedy that we cannot find out how may Iraqi civilians have been killed because one life is as important as another, particularly if it is that of a civilian walking along a street. It might help to focus the world on the ongoing war. How long does Mr. Mannix think it will take for stability to be established? It must be impossible to administer humanitarian aid in the current conflict and stability should be established in the interests of global peace.

Senator Norris

I welcome Mr. Mannix, whom I have known for a long time. I have known him to be an honourable, decent man and a fine servant of the State and for that reason I am a little embarrassed by what I heard from him. I took his contribution to be more of a spin than a briefing. Spin is dangerous and that has been seen both in America and the United Kingdom. Who decides the parameters within which our political position is taken? There was strong opposition in the Seanad to the conduct of this war on all sides and, presumably, political direction is emanating somewhere because I do not believe this was concocted by officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs on their own, particularly the selective quotation of Dr. Hans Blix.

On the basis of Mr. Mannix's contribution, one would imagine Dr. Blix was an enthusiastic supporter of the US intervention in Iraq and we all know perfectly well this is not the case. He complained bitterly and made it perfectly clear he had not been given a chance. He could have completed his task but he was not permitted by actions on the ground by the UK and the US, which were illegal. There is little difference of opinion among reputable jurists on this point.

I refer to weapons of mass destruction, which I heard a commentator on the media rather engagingly describe accidentally as weapons of mass deception, into which they have turned. Mr. Mannix gave an impressive list of tonnages of chemicals and shell casings and so on and then talked about proliferation, which gave me the impression, as a na1ve and innocent person, that enormous quantities of this stuff were lying around. The US has sophisticated surveillance and conditions over Iraq are good with clear skies and good visibility. Its operators can count the buttons on the jacket of a gentleman walking on the street. Do the officials consider it credible that, with this equipment and the absolute positive information the US stated it possessed regarding the existence and location of these weapons, the US has not found them and does not know where they are? Given all the available technical expertise, this is quite astonishing.

Other speakers, including Deputy Michael D. Higgins, have raised a series of questions in which I am also interested and there is not much point in reiterating them. However, it is highly dangerous that a major player, which is the only surviving superpower, should be allowed without criticism from friendly powers to get away with acts of international brigandage such as this. There is no doubt both the US President and the UK Prime Minister knowingly used unreliable information to catapult their countries into war.

A number of the US President's advisers, including Rumsfeld, Perle and Abramovich, who work in think tanks and so on have been frank in recent days about the conflict and stated they plotted it several years ago and the main reason for doing so was the lack of stability in Saudi Arabia. They wanted a stable client state in the area to guarantee the US's oil supply. That is fine but why give us rubbish about human rights and weapons of mass destruction? It is absolutely morally indefensible to use a post facto justification. They may get away with it with the public but they should not be allowed to do so by intelligent political people. They went with one argument and said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which they knew well was a lie, and then they turned around and said they got rid of Saddam Hussein anyway and they are delighted with that. Perhaps that is the case but let us not forget these people supported him. Mr. Rumsfeld’s hands are not clean. We all have in our memory his enthusiastic embrace of Saddam Hussein in the immediate aftermath of the bombing of Halabja and the fact that he helped to supply nuclear materials to North Korea. Money is involved in this kind of thing and, while it is an interesting incentive, it also disinfects issues in many moral contexts.

Mr. Bush, who does tell the truth accidentally occasionally, has odd views on these matters. He said one of the reasons the US entered Iraq was it refused to allow weapons inspectors in - but this was after Blix had pleaded to be allowed to return. He had been there and reported on the situation. There was no clear and present danger; therefore, Bush has probably violated his own constitution. The requirement for the actions he took is that there should be clear and present danger. There was not and these people knew that.

I am glad Deputy Mitchell raised a question that is very much on my mind as an ordinary human being, which relates to the gloating that followed the deaths not only of Saddam Hussein's sons who were exposed to brutalisation and torture from their earliest years by him in an attempt to blood them but also his 14 year old grandson. How guilty was he? What about the others? At least one other anonymous person was killed but we have not heard who that was. It might have been someone serving tea. A total of 14 people were killed when a bomb was dropped down the chimney of a house where it was reported Saddam Hussein was staying. Are the human rights of these people expendable?

I warn against Ireland giving uncritical support for the present US Administration as it violates every legal principle through the detention of people at Guantanamo Bay and putting them in a legal limbo. Nobody knows who they are as they appear to have absolutely no rights whatever. They are labelled al-Qaeda and yanked off the streets of Afghanistan or wherever. Some were released but did they receive compensation? We should be careful; there is a moral obligation on us to criticise people who are normally our friends but who have behaved in a thoroughly disgraceful, venal and mercenary way, which is what the US and UK Governments have done to their eternal shame.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I wish to raise three issues. Mr. Mannix's presentation was clear and objective and I hope for a clear and objective answer on Shannon. The right decision was made by Ireland regarding the use of Shannon's facilities being used. I got the sense the Government was expecting and hoping for a second UN resolution but was in a bit of a bind when that resolution did not come.

Looking at this from the outside, I felt the issue of weapons of mass destruction was not a relevant factor in the Government's decision, though I may be wrong and would be interested in a response. Seen from Ireland, Saddam Hussein did not comply on weapons of mass destruction and otherwise but the nature and extent of such weapons was not a factor in the decision. Mr. Mannix may not be in a position to answer this, but would I be correct in saying that many other factors would have been taken into account in the Government deciding to make overflight and other facilities available at Shannon? Those would include our traditional friendship with the US and its support, particularly on Northern Ireland in recent years, the 100,000 jobs here which are dependent on US investment and the fact that America is our third biggest export market. All these issues would have impinged on the consciousness of Government in making a decision on Shannon. If weapons of mass destruction impinged at all they would have been at a low level; is it correct that they were hardly a factor at all? I am interested in the thinking on this.

My second point is the death of the sons of Saddam Hussein. Is there any information available on this? My impression is that these people would have refused to surrender or to be taken prisoner and were in a fortified location. I understand a gun battle lasted for hours, that in no circumstances were they prepared to surrender, and that if they had they would have faced a crimes tribunal regarding crimes dating back decades.

Third, I would like the UN more involved in the reconstruction and post-conflict situation in Iraq and I am glad the Secretary General's special representative is taking up a role in that regard. I got the impression from comments by Kofi Annan that he was not particularly interested in being over-involved in reconstruction at this stage. I would like an assessment of the views of the UN Secretary General. I urge the Government to support Kofi Annan's views on reconstruction but I got the impression he was not over-anxious to have a UN mission over-involved at this point. I seek clarity on that.

Deputy Mulcahy

I note that there is to be a constitutional conference in July but is there any timescale for a first provisional government? As other speakers noted, how is the interface between the UN and the coalition forces working? The Chairman said the UN should be playing a central role but they cannot unless they are allowed to do so by those in possession. Will the UN be allowed to do so by the coalition forces?

Is there any update on the estimate of mass graves that may have been found at this point? The Iraqi National Congress in London mentioned 15,000, while Amnesty International stated that 17,000 people went missing in the last 20 years. Is there any update on either the number of civilians missing over the last 20 years or the number of mass graves?

I thank Mr. Mannix for his presentation. I have known him for as long as Senator Norris and we have both enjoyed his hospitality in Teheran. We did not register our interest as the ethics legislation had not come in then.

I dispute something Senator Norris said; he said that there is little dispute on the question of the legality of what happened in Iraq but that is wrong. There are several legal authorities which claim that what America did in Iraq is perfectly legal——

Senator Norris

Will Deputy Mulcahy quote those for the record?

Deputy Mulcahy

The British Attorney General for one.

Senator Norris

That is scarcely an impartial view.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Neither is the Senator's.

Senator Norris

I do not pretend it is.

Deputy Mulcahy

The Senator claimed he was very naïve and innocent. What he said is that there was little dispute on the point when it is certainly disputed.

Senator Norris

Exactly. As Deputy Michael D. Higgins reminded us, there are also the 15 heads of international universities. One can always find some crank.

Ms McKenna, MEP

Deputy Michael D. Higgins and Senator Norris made clear that the dispute is not coming from the legal profession. There may be people backing President Bush and saying this is legal but clearly from the legal experts that is not the case.

The Chairman mentioned the killing of Saddam's sons, saying it will weaken the resolve of the Iraqi resistance. I do not believe that. If one looks at history killing such people does not weaken the resolve among those who resist but encourages it. Violence always leads to more violence, whether we like it or not; it is also true of the Department of Foreign Affairs' briefing about the 39 US and the six British soldiers. It is inevitable that this will happen if one has an occupying force in a country; there will be resistance and we have seen that all over the world. It is interesting to hear the Department of Foreign Affairs say that people are recognising that the Americans and British are occupying forces - that they invaded and are now occupying a country. That is completely wrong.

I am surprised by the Department of Foreign Affairs' briefing. Looking at the agenda here, there is an update on Iraq and a presentation by the Department of Foreign Affairs, so I was expecting something different to what we got, which was a huge regurgitation of the Government's justification for its support for the US and British forces illegal invasion of Iraq on the basis of the weapons of mass destruction claim. This claim has clearly lost its credibility, as we saw in recent weeks. I have met Hans Blix and the selective quoting of Mr. Blix suggests he was almost in favour of invading Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix made it very clear when we met him as a delegation from the European Parliament that they wanted more time and more resources. They wanted to be able to do the job properly, which they were not allowed to do. He cannot be used as justification for what the Government did, which was to back the Americans and the British. To say the Irish do not rely on intelligence from other countries is not correct. I believe the Government and the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, relied on what Tony Blair and George Bush were saying. It was quite clear that the Taoiseach was backing the American and British argument that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These weapons have not been found. The arguments justifying the belief that they existed have been undermined seriously in recent weeks which is a huge embarrassment for the Government in relation to what it did.

The same applies to the use of Shannon which has been referred to by a number of speakers. It beggars belief that the Government should allow Shannon to be used for what was an illegal act. There was no clear definition as to how, when and why Shannon would or would not be used. There is an attempt now to brush this aside and forget about what happened. Clearly the Government must stand over the position it took and justify what it said. Deputy Higgins has quoted a number of different arguments made by Government representatives in the Dáil. They must stand over these arguments and justify them because they have been discredited.

Listening to the presentation I was hoping to get more information. We went to Iraq and the US and met Hans Blix. We also met the weapons inspectors in Iraq. The version we heard was very different from what was being spun by the American and British Governments.

As mentioned in the presentation, since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, security for ordinary people is a serious problem. I have spoken to people in Iraq who have said that when they go out on the streets of Baghdad in the morning there are people dead on the streets. There is no security anymore. When Saddam Hussein was in power security was extremely tight and it was the end for anyone who stepped out of line. However, there is no security for ordinary people now. This raises serious questions as to how people can continue to live in a country where there is no effective security except for the extremely well off who can afford their own private security.

In relation to health care, we visited a number of hospitals in Iraq where the situation was catastrophic. A huge number of children were dying in the hospitals and there was a lack of medicine; someone mentioned that there is still a lack of medicine. What is the position now in hospitals? Have they improved since the occupation? Are children in these hospitals any better off?

When we were in Iraq we were informed that money from the oil for food programme could not be used to purchase food and as a result local producers were completely decimated. They were buying in grain and rice from places like Australia, countries that were lining up to bomb them. Under the oil for food programme they had to buy food from outside - everything had to come from outside. They were not allowed to buy one grain of corn within Iraq. This meant that farmers and producers of food were basically unable to compete. Each person was allowed 18 kilogrammes of food per month. This cost 250 denar or the equivalent of approximately US$ 800 on the open market. They were able to get that practically for nothing so there was no way people would buy the food for the price they would have to pay in the ordinary market, therefore, there was no production. In order for the country to survive and to be self-sufficient the production of food should be supported.

Under the Saddam Hussein regime education was free and compulsory for all, male and female alike. The education system in Iraq was probably the best in the whole of the Middle East. This was completely decimated as a result of the sanctions. There was no money for the upkeep of the schools and no money to pay teachers who were being paid a pittance. What is happening now in relation to education is extremely dangerous. If a whole young population does not have access to education it creates a very dangerous situation which could explode at a later stage. If one wants to set up a resistance movement it will be much easier to recruit people who have no education or no other opportunities. What is being done in regard to the education system?

When Saddam Hussein's two sons were killed, his 14 year old grandson was also killed. There seems to be a shoot to kill policy. The Iraq invasion was based on a shoot to kill policy. People were basically saying that something must be done, the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction, they must be killed first and questions asked later. This appears to be the situation still because one keeps hearing that the Americans accidentally killed Iraqi civilians. We criticise Army personnel in the North of Ireland for this so surely the situation should be the same in Iraq because people have a right to life. If people are accidentally shot, so to speak, that is operating a shoot to kill policy which is not acceptable. What is being done about this?

Senator O’Rourke

I welcome Mr. Mannix and his colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs. His colleagues attended here two weeks ago speaking on humanitarian issues in Iraq. They gave us an insight into the education of young people there.

As I said two weeks ago, we now find ourselves in an ambiguous position, ambiguous because in the beginning it was painted as a macho war - Saddam was bad and those going after him were good. There are "goodies" and "baddies" like an old western film. If one wants to be good, one must be against Saddam and for invasion, which was not the case. In the early stages of the conflict, things were painted in that way. If one had doubts or misgivings, which many of us had - we do not all have to be from one party to have misgivings - one was somehow seen as cutting across many centuries of friendship, which was considered incorrect. With hindsight, those who had misgivings from the beginning have been justified.

I listened to Mr. Mannix who spoke about the 1991 resolution. He appeared to use this as a justification for the actions taken. That cannot be a justification because 1991 was 12 years ago. How much water has flowed under the bridge in that period? We have had President Bush Senior and President Bush Junior in that period, with varying points of view on the issue of Iraq. So much has happened since then that going back to 1991 and the so-called "non-co-operation" as seen in Iraq since then, is not a very strong argument.

I hope I will be allowed say that there was a defensive note in the statement by Mr. Mannix. That may not have been deliberate but what I heard was a defensive note. Public servants do their duty very well, but a defensive note crept in as to why and how - but particularly why - certain decisions were taken.

A Machiavellian agenda took over in the end. I still hear people in pubs and outside saying that the end justified the means because Saddam was a bad bloke, which of course he was. We all know he was an evil ogre. There is no doubt about it. Yet because someone is an evil ogre, that does not mean one can apply the Machiavellian theory of the end justifying the means - the means being, to my mind, the unjustifiable and illegal invasion of Iraq. If that was not illegal in the exact sense of the word, it is very near it. The concept of might being right, the notion that if one is strong and mighty, as is the greatest power in the world, one has carte blanche to do what one likes, is ignoble and wrong.

I have one major question. What was the mandate for invasion? We know the national flag under which the invasion took place, but under what flag of permission was Iraq invaded? One cannot go back to 1991 and say it was because Iraq did not comply from that time. I was amused by the quotation taken from Hans Blix because he said many other things which were expressed in the most straightforward language one could hear. The man should get the Nobel Prize because he was so straightforward and continued to be so, right through, despite being invited to Downing Street, to Washington and everywhere else. He stood his ground and put forward his knowledge so that using that quotation in that ambiguous way was misrepresentative. I want to know the international mandate for the invasion of Iraq. The UN did not want it, nor did most people who looked closely at the situation and put aside economic considerations. I understand the economic friendship we have with the US, so this is not meant as a tirade against any particular country. It is based on common sense.

I notice a very subtle use of language when people talk about "occupying forces", the forces of the US and the UK currently in Iraq. They are forces of occupation, so the words have been turned around to mean something completely different. "Occupying forces" could be those sent in to keep the peace, but these are forces of occupation.

Because the two major countries find themselves in a quandary over their behaviour and the sequence of events, the hunt is on for any bit of news which appears to be "good", which will act as a distraction from the mounting realisation that so many things were wrong with regard to the invasion. So it was that the deaths of Saddam's two sons and his nephew were seized on with great glee, and so it is that the BBC was similarly seized on. Anything is seized on to distract attention from what clearly was a wrong deed, based on hyped-up information of what was to be found or might be found in Iraq when the forces of occupation went in. It has become a ridiculous see-saw. In one news report the UK or the US is getting it in the neck, and two or three hours later, "triumphs" are recorded, such as the discovery of Saddam's sons. The hunt is on in a very primitive, tribal way. Let us get Saddam and everything will be shown - or so the forces think - to have been right. It is not right. When the hunt is on and the quarry is found, one hangs garlands of leaves on oneself as finder - if Saddam Hussein is found. That does not excuse the forces of invasion having gone in. Such a rationale is Machiavellian in the fullest sense of the term. We would be wrong to pretend and to go along with the black and white agenda being pushed.

I am very pleased that Mr. Mannix has attended. We needed to hear what he had to say. I am particularly satisfied that every effort that can be made by Ireland regarding humanitarian aid is being made. Two weeks ago I asked the officials to convey my feeling of satisfaction to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, because he has been very generous with his time and efforts in that regard. The same holds for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. Yet outside the officialdom of all that, and the fact of the officials attending today, we are entitled to look at this entire issue with unblinking eyes, not with eyes dimmed over with facts. Things do not have to be believed or portrayed simply because they represent the official line. That would be wrong.

I want to know under what mandate, either national or international, the invasion of Iraq was justified. It appears to me - and I have said this in another forum - that the US is on a predatory path. As awful as the situation is, can we draw lessons from it? What stay can be put on the predatory path of the major world power so that there is no further example of what has happened in Iraq? Small as Ireland is, what effort can we make, through the UN, towards ensuring that an invasion such as this cannot happen again?

Senator Ryan

I will be very brief. I thank Mr. Mannix for the time he has given us and the information he has supplied, but I was a little bit disappointed. I have found nothing in the information given to me that a citizen with a reasonably literate knowledge of foreign affairs would not have known already. I hoped we would have been given a little more information.

Not that long ago, when Vietnam, under the most severe provocation, invaded Cambodia and destroyed a regime that was worse than that of Saddam Hussein - the regime of Pol Pot - we condemned that invasion along with the rest of the world and refused to recognise the government that displaced Pol Pot, on the grounds that the invasion was illegal. It got rid of the worst tyrant in the world at the time, who killed perhaps a quarter of his own population. What is the legal distinction? Vietnam was attacked by Cambodia, and retaliated, yet for 15 years we persisted in recognising that most tyrannical of people, Pol Pot, as the government of Cambodia. What has changed, where we now recognise de facto the invasion of Iraq and are beginning post hoc to justify it because the regime was dreadful?

A major event like the war in Iraq does not happen in a little sealed box. It spills over into every area of foreign affairs. In the old days, the phrase "all necessary means" was the UN code for authorising the use of force. That phrase was never used in the present phase of the conflict in Iraq. What is the legal basis under which any state in the world can now take military action against a state which is in breach of a UN resolution? If Egypt, Syria and a few other Arab states decided to attack Israel to bring to an end its - in the eyes of the United Nations - illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, what would be the legal position of the Irish Government to say that such an action was wrong? I believe it would be morally wrong and I am doubtful now whether in the present climate of international law, it could be argued that it was illegal, if what happened in Iraq was legal. Mr. Mannix's presentation was to a considerable extent an attempt to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. If two big countries can take unilateral action because they believe a UN resolution has been broken, what is to stop other countries in other situations doing the same thing?

The third issue is the weapons of mass destruction. I only know of one country in the Middle East that with certainty has weapons of mass destruction and that is Israel. Has the Irish Government a view on whether they are a threat to the countries in the region, Israel's neighbours? What does the Government propose to say or do about it, given the degree to which it accepted the argument about weapons of mass destruction?

The most disappointing part of Mr. Mannix's presentation was the selective quotes from Hans Blix. In his last presentation to the UN Security Council, Dr. Blix said that even if Iraq was fully compliant, and I accept he said it was not, it would take months to complete his inspection programme. That means that even under ideal conditions, Dr. Blix needed months. How can it be true that there was a legal basis for this war if the inspector said he had not sufficient time to do his task even if Iraq was compliant?

I would have thought that a Government and a country with our humanitarian record would make some effort to tell us how many civilians died in the war and are being killed by criminality in Iraq. It is close to obscene that every single regrettable American and British death since the hostilities officially ended is reported. We do not know even in hundreds, or approximately, the number of Iraqis being killed on a nightly basis because of lawlessness. Somebody must have some idea. The Department of Foreign Affairs should know. Iraqi civilians are supposed to be the reason all this was done. yet they seem to have faded spectacularly into the background.

Senator Mooney

I have been trying hard to see whether Mr. Mannix has a resemblance to George Bush or whether he acts like Tony Blair. I look forward to hearing how he answers many of the questions which I think would be better directed at representatives of the United States and UK Governments. That is not to detract from the serious nature of the questions or the motives for their being asked.

A sense of gloating and boasting has been conveyed by the British media in particular throughout the day. I am appalled at the BBC because I have always admired it and will continue to do so but it seems to have been caught up in this frenzy, particularly when it was quoting the British Foreign Minister as referring to the two sons as being psychopaths and that this was a justification for their deaths. I find it deeply offensive. I am opposed to the death penalty and I am opposed to the sort of action that would result in those type of deaths. It is important that this committee articulates that view. The manner of these reports is offensive to the majority of Irish people and similarly in the United States.

On the wider UN involvement, some members of the committee were listening to expert advice and views over the past weeks. We had an exchange of views with a number of ambassadors from Arab countries. There is a deteriorating security situation. Will Mr. Mannix give the committee an indication of the moves that seem to be afoot, with comments from the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Kasyanov and other straws in the wind, that there may be a widening of the UN mandate on a military level but not on a humanitarian level in Iraq? The United States is finally coming to the view that it cannot cope and that there is a need for the expertise of the UN. India has indicated that it is prepared to provide troops but only under UN mandate. Russia is also of that view. Does Mr. Mannix believe there will be a widening of the mandate and that the US and Britain will allow the participation of a UN mandated military force to prevent further deterioration of security? That seems to be the greatest concern of those in the region.

The Iraqi council had a meeting with the UN last night. The media reported today that while there was not an endorsement of what it was doing, there was a tacit acceptance that it was moving in the right direction. Has Mr. Mannix any views on this matter and whether Ireland has any role in encouraging political dialogue in Iraq? There has been criticism of the composition of the Iraqi council. In our discussions with representatives of the Arab states, there seems to be a view both within and without Iraq - and by "without" I mean in the immediate region - that the 50% plus majority of non-resident Iraqis on the council is not being met with a great deal of confidence or acceptance. There is a view that the embryonic political leadership within Iraq is not being given due recognition. Does Mr. Mannix believe that the Iraqi council can deliver what it is promising and that it will be accepted within Iraq?

Does Mr. Mannix agree that there has been a shift in emphasis within the United States Administration away from much of what the committee has heard today about the justification for war and the absence of any specific weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons? We do not hear much about biological weapons now. Does Mr. Mannix agree there has been a shift in emphasis onto Syria and Iran in recent days by the US President? Does he see any underlying motive for this shift? I will give the US authorities credit because it seems, from what one reads and hears, that they are committed to progressing the road map for peace in Israel. It seems that the US President, Mr. Bush, and his Administration are engaged with the other parties for perhaps the first time in a long time. Does Mr. Mannix believe there is an underlying agenda in this regard?

Does Mr. Mannix believe pressure is being put on Syria to negotiate a settlement with Israel? They have issued statements in the last few days. The main bone of contention between Syria and Israel is the Golan Heights. The problems between the countries do not necessarily relate to the other road map issues. I have raised this issue because Syria is central to what is going on in Iraq. There are allegations that al-Qaeda elements are still operating in Iraq and that much of Saddam Hussein's government apparatus fled to Syria. Does Mr. Mannix have any views on whether there has been a shift in emphasis? Is an underlying attempt being made to bring Syria onside in the context of the road map?

While the Arab nations are divided about the invasion of Iraq, many of them have tacitly supported it, perhaps because of historical, economic or political links with the US. There is no unified voice on the matter in the Arab League, for example. There is a unified view in the Arab League that security and political problems need to be addressed.

Ms Patricia McKenna MEP referred to the question of unacceptability. I get the impression that there is a dichotomy between the attitude shown to the forces in the south of Iraq - the British forces in the Basra region have been embraced, although not literally - and the negative and hostile reaction encountered by the US forces elsewhere in Iraq. It has been mentioned that 39 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. While I accept that six British soldiers died following a horrific incident in a police station in southern Iraq, reports from Iraq today indicate that tribal leaders in the region are actively seeking those who perpetrated the crime in order to bring them to justice in Iraq. Does Mr. Mannix agree that there is a dichotomy between attitudes to US forces operating in the northern and central areas of Iraq, including Baghdad, and the attitudes to British forces in southern Iraq where there is an absence of guerrilla activities? This might be related to the fact, as a commentator said today, that the British Army has a great deal of experience in dealing with occupation, for example in Northern Ireland, Malaysia, Kenya, Aden, etc.

Deputy Noonan

I welcome Mr. Mannix and his colleagues. I regret that I was not here for their presentation, but I have been here for much of this extremely interesting meeting.

I am concerned by the legal and moral vacuum that is opening and on which we are now basing our foreign policy. Events have meant that our policy is now being decided by expediency. The fact that there is less certainty in the world than there was means that there are difficulties for the Government, as well as for the diplomats in Iveagh House and our embassies. The legal vacuum is immense. I do not think there is any real legal mandate for the actions that have been taken in Iraq and that may be contemplated elsewhere. There is no real mystery about the policy of the United States. The world has changed utterly since 11 September 2001 and US policy has changed with it. Everything done and said by the US is done and said through the prism of the events of that day. If one tries to analyse what is happening on the basis of experience of international events, one is ignoring the massive changes that have taken place in the United States.

Senator O'Rourke spoke of the mandate for the invasion of Iraq, but I do not believe there was any such mandate. There was a general acceptance after the Second World War that sovereign states would not be invaded, regardless of the nature of their Administrations. This may have been something of a fiction, as we have many examples of such states being subverted by outside powers aligning themselves to a majority or to minority oppositions within. The understanding that sovereign states would not be invaded was a workable and working fiction. One can understand the change that has taken place by examining the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the invasion of Iraq by the United States now.

There is no mystery in relation to US policy, which is well documented in President Bush's speeches and in the writings of leading Republicans. It is particularly well documented in the President's report on the national security status of the US, which he is legally required to make to Congress each year. The report relating to September 2002 makes clear that there is an absolute policy of the military pre-eminence of the United States. This is not a theory but something that is stated clearly in the document. The US Administration states clearly that it will never again allow an alternative world power, such as the Soviet Union in the past, to creep up and rival the US. It says that it will not accept its friends' attempts to rival the US as a military power. It would look askance at any unified EU security and defence policy which might rival the US in any way in the near future.

The President's security report states that while the US is quite willing to operate with international mandates and to work with international organisations, whether under the mandate of the UN as in Afghanistan or in conjunction with the NATO powers as in certain Balkan interventions, its preference is to form coalitions of the willing. The report states that the US will operate with coalitions of like-minded nations to intervene when it feels it is being threatened by terrorism, states that sponsor terrorism or a combination of the two. The US is concerned that "rogue states" will provide terrorist organisations with weapons of mass destruction so they can damage US interests at home or abroad or put the lives of US citizens at risk.

The United States has stated, in the bluntest possible terms, that its preference is to operate with coalitions of the willing. Such coalitions will be defined by the task in hand, rather than a group of nations coming together at an international forum to say, "Is it not a bad old world? What are the difficulties this week? How will we combine to solve them?" The coalitions will be task-specific. It is envisaged, for example, that intervention in North Korea would involve a different coalition to that which intervened in Iraq. Such coalitions will always be led by the US, as the pre-eminent world power.

The security report goes on to talk in terms of definitions of terrorism. The United States had a traumatic experience on 11 September 2001. Although we all have a very strong view about terrorism and what constitutes a terrorist act, there is no real internationally accepted definition of criminal terrorism. There is no agreement about how it can be dealt with legally. Many al-Qaeda suspects who were captured in Afghanistan have been taken prisoner by the Americans and are being held at Guantanamo Bay. There is no clear understanding of how they should be treated or what forum will be used to deal with them. There are difficulties between the United Kingdom and the US in relation to the internment of British citizens. There may be common agreement about terrorism and how one should act to combat it.

The Americans have a clear definition of what constitutes a rogue state. Any state which qualifies under any one of five stated headings is a rogue state in which case the Americans maintain the right to intervene militarily. The international legal basis for action has changed completely. It is being directed by a superpower which leaves a small country such as Ireland, with its interests as outlined by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and others, in a difficult position. I can see us drifting from a foreign policy which has been driven from a sound moral and legal perspective at least since the time of Frank Aiken. It is now been driven by expediency. We need at ministerial rather than official level a strong moral and legal statement to form the basis of our foreign affairs policy otherwise we are in a situation of drift.

I am taking too much of the committee's time but I have one last comment to make in respect of my second concern. A shorthand history of the 20th century might represent it as a competition, in primary colours, among fascism, communism and democracy. There was an interplay of conflicts among competing systems. It took a world war in which Marxism and democracy combined to put down the fascist threat. Until the fall of the Berlin wall, the rivalry between democracy and Marxism played itself out to the point at which the democratisation of eastern Europe and the collapse of the Russian empire took place with the break up of the Soviet Union. What was interesting in those competing systems was that fascists and communists were prepared at all times to spread their ideologies by fire and sword. Democracy was passive as people freely accept it due to its nature.

A great change has taken place in the United States of America where a crusading concept of democracy has been adopted. The USA is prepared to put American military power behind the spread of democracy to countries which have no democratic tradition. It will be interesting to see how the process works out. At one level one could see it as a form of international insanity, but at another it might be thought of as admirable in terms of its idealism. Is the USA to plant the flag of democracy in all parts of the world? It is missing the point to say that events in the United States of America and the Middle East are driven by considerations of oil. There is a far wider ideological agenda and it is a dangerous one. There is no mystery about it. My comments are not based on supposition. This agenda is set out in black and white in the literature. The way in which the case is argued is astounding and it concerns me that we will be dragged along in the wake, realising though failing to acknowledge fully the change which has taken place. We may be put in a position where our actions as a small European state which is very friendly to the United States of America are driven by expediency.

Things have gone wrong in Iraq already. North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya have been termed rogue states. The front-line terrorist states have each reacted differently to the American changes. Libya ran up the white flag. It decided to compensate the victims of Lockerbie and its leader's son was sent to play soccer in Italy. Libya was also willing to pay massive amounts of money to bereaved families in the United States. On the other hand, the North Koreans decided that if they did not do something to discourage the Americans, the USA would invade by Monday week. They began to talk up their nuclear threat and took steps to warn the Americans off. I am not sure of what is happening in Iran while Syria continues to be difficult to read.

I do not know if that helps in any way. I understand that Mr. Mannix cannot reply to my comments. We need a clear statement of principle from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in respect of the moral and legal basis of our foreign policy. A policy must be implemented in accordance with those concepts. It would be sad if some of our friends were offended, but we cannot continue on the basis of expediency and pragmatism. Serious damage has been done in the last six months.

Deputy Gregory

Deputy Noonan has provided answers to two of the questions I planned to ask. These issues and points have been raised again and again in the various contributions which have been made. I hope Mr. Mannix is able to clarify them for the committee.

To use Deputy Noonan's phrase, what is required is a clear statement of principle. In my innocence, I presumed the Government and the Department had a clear position on such issues. Can Mr. Mannix tell the committee if we have a clear position in respect of international law? What is the Government's assessment of this invasion in the context of international law given the fact that so many civilians lost their lives not to mention the appalling mayhem and chaos which has descended on Iraq? Hopefully, Mr. Mannix can clearly state the Government's assessment of the war in the context of international law.

In this instance, a vastly superior power, the United States of America, invaded a country without the backing of a specific United Nations resolution. The invasion caused huge destruction and a great many casualties. What is the Government's position when something of this nature occurs? We listen again and again to the Minister's statement of support for the United Nations, but my understanding of the war is that it was carried out without a specific UN resolution.

In the context of my questions, making Shannon Airport available to the USA meant that Ireland not only supported but to some degree participated in the war. What is our responsibility for the many casualties we continue to see, including the 14 year old grandson of Saddam Hussein and the other innocent children and adults who continue to die in Iraq?

When Hans Blix sought time to complete the work of the weapons inspectors, what was the Government's position?

Chairman

Mr. Mannix will not have time to answer every question. It would be appreciated if he could group them and provide the committee with as many answers as possible. What are his conclusions having listened to 14 Deputies and Senators?

Mr. Mannix

I thank all committee members for the great interest they have shown. I will do my best to answer their questions. At the centre of this matter is the question of weapons of mass destruction and whether there is a legal justification for our position.

I did not re-examine Resolution 687 to demonstrate that it provided a justification in itself for military action. While that may be the position of other governments, it is not one this Government has adopted. I cited the resolution to demonstrate the position of the Security Council. The Security Council believed that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which it was, and moved to deal with these weapons. On the basis of this resolution and the resolutions all the way up to Resolution 1441, plus the reports of the arms inspectors mandated by the Security Council, Ireland took the position that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Ireland had no option. That was the position decided upon by the Security Council, from Resolutions 687 through to 1441, which recognised that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security through its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is not only the Irish position, although it had to be given the decision of the Security Council, but also the position taken by the General Affairs Council of the European Union, despite the differences among several member states as to how to deal with this problem.

It is perfectly clear from the reports of the arms inspectors in 1998, and most recently from Dr. Blix, that there were many unanswered questions. I listed some of the questions to which Dr. Blix referred. He said that Iraq had failed to co-operate fully on substance as distinct from procedure; that the declaration which the Security Council required Iraq to make on its holdings of weapons of mass destruction, components and precursors, was incorrect. He listed a series of weapons which were not accounted for under the UNSCOM report of 1998 and were still unaccounted for when Dr. Blix went in with his team, UNMOVIC. Therefore, the Security Council and the arms inspectors took the position that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations under Security Council resolutions to rid itself of its weapons of mass destruction and to demonstrate that it had done so. The Iraqi authorities have responsibility for this. The weapons inspectors should not have been required to do this in a game of cat and mouse. It is clear that Dr. Blix did say all of those things.

There are very different views on the question of justification. The United States and the United Kingdom, in particular, take the view that they had justification under earlier resolutions. Deputy Higgins is right to say that there is no question of automaticity in Resolution 1441. When Ireland was a member of the Security Council involved in the negotiation and drafting of that resolution we wanted to avoid any question of automaticity, and we would not accept that 1441 did include any element of automatic action just as the French did not accept that. Like us, they oppose this. The US and British argument is that they did have authorisation under earlier resolutions.

It is not my point and it is not my purpose to try and justify the arguments made by other governments. I do not represent them. The Irish Government never said it had justification; it never said the legal arguments were acceptable. On the contrary, it said it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to come down on one side or the other of a very complex and detailed legal argument, and the Minister stated this.

Deputy M. Higgins

He did say that.

Mr. Mannix

He did.

Senator Norris

If it was impossible to come down on one side, how did they use Shannon Airport?

Chairman

Mr. Mannix without interruption, please.

Mr. Mannix

I am sorry if I gave the impression that my quotes from Dr. Blix were selective. He did say the things I quoted. Of course he said other things. He wanted more time to complete his inspections and we supported him on that. The Government took the view, and stated as such, that there should have been more time allowed for the inspections. We shared Dr. Blix's view on this matter. Whether it would have led anywhere nobody can tell. We cannot know that now but we did agree that more time should have been allowed for the inspectors to try and complete their work.

There was another series of questions concerning the security situation in Iraq and civilian casualties. There is a security problem and as I said it is the responsibility of the occupying powers, to deal with this situation. It must have been an extremely difficult situation for them to deal with. They are taking heavy casualties, particularly the Americans; the British have taken fewer casualties. There are fewer British forces there and there is a difference in what has happened and in the tactics adopted by the British forces compared to the American forces. Part of the reason for this is probably that the British are operating in an area which is known to be less firm in its support for the former regime. Nevertheless, the British have found that they need to take greater care than they did at the beginning and they are finding that their situation is a little more difficult.

Several members of the committee asked me if I could give a calculation for the civilian casualties. I am not in a position to do that. I do not have any figures, other than those which are available to everybody. The same is true in regard to giving an estimate of how many people have vanished into mass graves, the figures of 15,000 and 17,000 have been mentioned. I do not have any other figures and it will be a long time before any definitive figure does emerge.

I was asked about the Middle East peace process and Iran and Syria and whether there has been a shift in the US emphasis. Senator Mooney is right to detect a greater concern on the part of the Americans in regard to Syria and Iran. This concern is less about trying to push Syria into negotiating with Israel than it is about a suspicion that various dissident or militant Palestinian organisations are being allowed to operate in Syria. The Americans are anxious to bring that to an end and to ensure that Syria does not in any way assist any of these organisations. Similarly, the Americans and the IAEA have expressed concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons programme. There are also American concerns about Iranian attitudes to Hizbollah and the Middle East peace process and there is no doubt that the Americans wish those issues to be addressed.

The emphasis has changed since 11 September 2001. The Americans are pursuing a broader agenda in which they are trying to come to grips with terrorism and there is a danger that any anti-terrorism campaign can go beyond the bounds and, if badly handled, can provoke more terror. There is also a great danger that terrorism can be equated with Islam and that a wave of anti-Islamic sentiment can spread, something in which we take an interest. The Government wishes to stop this kind of thinking and to encourage people to understand where these differences come from between civilisations. We want to encourage a dialogue between civilisations and foster an attitude which tackles the root causes of terrorism through political means rather than through a security approach.

The mass killings at Halabja were mentioned. I am not sure I quite got the question but as far as I am aware there has never been any doubt in anybody's mind that the Iraqi Government did carry out attacks on that unfortunate village. There are clear procedures laid down in Resolution 1483 on the question of oil and how it is to be handled. I do not see how the kind of transactions which some American officials have mentioned would be possible if those procedures are followed. A supervisory body has been set up for the express purpose of ensuring that the provisions are adhered to. In doing this, the United Nations has done a good job. It has put a structure in place that will be tested over time, and only time will tell how successful it will be in dealing with potential problems. We hope that this structure will prove to be effective.

Deputy M. Higgins

The reference was a speech in Oman.

Mr. Mannix

Yes, I am aware of that. I heard the Deputy. None of us know how this is going to work out. I am pleased that Resolution 1483 has put structures in place which ensure that it will not be open to anybody to have a free ride. There are supervisory structures which we should welcome.

The UN is involved in both the political and physical reconstruction of Iraq. On the physical side there are obviously huge problems, not least in the security environment. It is difficult for aid agencies to operate. The oil for food programme is being phased out. Various methods are being put in place to ensure that the necessary supplies will reach the Iraqi people. Furthermore, sanctions have been ended, with the exception of those relating to arms. We hope that in the months to come we will see an end to the problems that used to arise but I do not believe this is going to happen overnight. It is not my role in the Department of Foreign Affairs to speak about this, but as a matter of common sense it is clear that it will take some time to rectify the various problems which have arisen.

I was also asked whether there were likely to be further Security Council resolutions legitimising the invasion that took place. I do not think that is very likely. When Resolution 1483 was under discussion the members of the Security Council, of which we were not then members, were concerned that the language to be adopted should not lend itself to a construction which suggested that the members of the Security Council were legitimising the invasion.

The other question, on United Nations Security Council resolutions, referred to the possibility of a military mandate. As we all know, there are rumours that a resolution may be introduced at the Security Council to mandate a UN sanctioned peacekeeping force. We simply do not know what is going to happen. No doubt this is being discussed among the countries most deeply concerned. I simply could not speculate on what is likely to emerge from that.

We are in favour of encouraging political dialogue within Iraq among the various political factions. The composition of the governing council that was recently established has naturally been criticised, especially for including so many people who fall into the category of exiles from Iraq. Nevertheless, it is a very important step forward and has been recognised as such by Kofi Annan. The Secretary General's special representative has already made a report to the Security Council, which a number of speakers have mentioned. It was a reasonably upbeat report. On that topic the special representative came to the conclusion that the governing council, which is an interim body, while not being democratic, was broadly representative of the groups in Iraq.

The next step that has to be taken in Iraq is the appointment of ministers who will have the confidence to deal with various questions concerning the running of the country. The governance of the country will, by these means, be gradually restored to the Iraqi people. We are in favour of this happening as soon as possible. It is understandable that it should take some time. As the committee knows, at the time there were criticisms that matters moved too quickly in Bosnia, that there was not enough time. Indeed, we have seen in Iraq, perhaps in a positive way, that the occupying powers actually slowed down at one stage and did not move forward too quickly to allow more time for consultation. As I have said, the Secretary General's special representative gave a relatively optimistic report. I say relatively because he also called for a firm timeframe in which the occupying powers would move to establish a proper and representative government with a constitution. We will naturally voice our support for rapid movement towards restoration of democratic government in Iraq. It is quite clear that this must be the objective. It is also clear that this is not something that is going to happen overnight. The entire situation in Iraq is complex and difficult. There is a danger of the country breaking apart. This is a problem the occupying powers have to deal with. However, they will not be doing this on their own. The Secretary General, representing the United Nations, is working with the occupying powers to forward the democratic process.

Irish foreign policy has always been based on support for the Security Council and its decisions. We have felt very strongly that the failure of Iraq to comply with Security Council resolutions was a challenge to the authority of the Council, the United Nations and the whole concept of international law. We do not favour the idea of operating outside the framework of the Security Council. In the invasion of Iraq, the British and Americans themselves do not admit, claim or allow claims to pass unanswered, that they operated outside Security Council resolutions. They claim they had this authorisation under earlier resolutions. It is a matter for the committee to judge whether those claims are legitimate. The Government's position will continue to be one of support for the Security Council and of seeking to resolve disputes in a peaceful manner and to avoid, if at all possible, the use of force. We have to bear in mind that under the charter of the Security Council the use of force is an option available to them.

I hope I have managed to answer a number of the questions. I cannot be sure I managed all of them.

Chairman

Mr. Mannix has given us comprehensive answers and has heard the views that were put by the members, so he can, presumably, take them on board in future.

The question of weapons of mass destruction is still open. It is not possible to say at this stage how much information was available at the time. I suspect the question will run for some time to come. The committee had a meeting with Hans Blix while he was still engaged in this work, and we know that the declaration he received was inaccurate in the first instance. He made it very clear that there were weapons missing from the declaration he received. After the work he had done he needed more time, and indeed sought more time. We were relieved when Mr. Blair managed to get an extra month for the inspectors in the face of great pressure. We were over there at that time. However, it did not go any further than that and unfortunately the occupation began at that stage.

The question now is how to ensure that Iraq will quickly return to peace and stability so that the democratic processes will be put in place. The joint committee wants the UN to be given a central role not only in relation to humanitarian matters but also in the political reconstruction. We join Kofi Annan and the UN Council of Ministers in wishing the incoming governing council well and hoping that this will be a useful first step in establishing democratic structures where all Iraqis will feel their interests are represented.

I met Dr. O'Donoghue of the Medical Missionaries of Mary this week. She had been working in Iraq before the war, she was working there during the war and she is going back in a few days. She has been involved continually for a number of years in the front line and has seen the terrible deterioration there currently. She pointed out that the first priority has to be a guarantee of security. Senator Kitt raised that point in relation to a police force. Mr. Mannix raised it in relation to the views he expressed. Many of the committee members would be of like mind. Dr. O'Donoghue gave a graphic description of the reality entailed by lack of security and the fact that people involved with reconstruction, education, health, etc., cannot physically do their work because of this. They need to have people outside hospitals, just to provide security for them. That is not happening, as yet. She added that the repair of infrastructure and power for medical equipment, which is virtually all gone - not so much the medical supplies and food which are being made available - is crucial for a return to normality in Iraq. An extremely difficult situation obtains there right now and it requires very urgent attention based on the reports we are getting from different quarters. We hope measures can be taken to speed up that activity and to put in place security and achieve the return of power supplies that are needed so badly. The emphasis in the representations we receive is that things are now worse than at any time before or during the war or indeed at any other time. Therefore the urgency is enormous. Thank you again, Mr. Mannix and thanks, too, to your colleagues.

Mr. Mannix

If we have a couple of minutes in hand, Mr. Chairman, I might ask my colleague, Mr. Keith McBain, to say something about the EU rapid reaction force and the Shannon question.

Chairman

We are happy with that.

Mr. Keith McBain

Thank you, Chairman. I should like to respond quickly on two areas. Deputy Mitchell asked whether there was any potential role for the EU rapid reaction force in relation to Iraq and whether this issue had been discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council this week. On that point, no proposals have been put forward for any specific role. Mr. Mannix talked earlier about the situation at the UN and the fact there has not been any discussion on this is issue is probably attributable not only to the particular dynamic that preceded the current situation but also arose from the absence of a UN mandate for any further military involvement on the part of other countries. Another factor is that the operational capacity of the rapid reaction force is at a very early stage. The two missions it is involved in for the European Union at the moment are modest in scale. I do not think a possible role further down the line can be ruled out but it is too early to speculate at this stage on what this might entail - and whether there is potential for the European Union's non-military capacities to be brought to bear in this area.

A number of Deputies and Senators and Ms Patricia McKenna, MEP, mentioned Shannon. Deputy O'Keeffe referred to the criteria applicable to the use of Shannon. I believe it is important to see the use of Shannon in the context of the very long standing nature of the arrangements that have been in place. In practical terms, military aircraft of various nationalities have been refuelling at Shannon on their way back from North America over a period of many decades. This is a practice that continued during the cold war period and throughout all the various conflicts, wars and upheavals of the last 50 years. As far I am aware, the State never sought throughout this period to revoke or restrict permission to the US to avail of approved landing and overflight facilities on the basis of its participation in any military conflict. I would also make the point that these arrangements were maintained under successive Governments, comprising as they did, various political parties. I would like also to be absolutely clear in relation to some comments that no special additional facilities were requested by the US in relation to the military conflict in Iraq over and above the maintenance of these long standing arrangements at Shannon.

One other point in relation to Shannon, there were a number of references to the mandate for military action from Deputy Gregory and others. There is no clear consensus as to the legality for the military action and as to whether a mandate existed for it under the previous resolutions of the UN Security Council. I believe it is fair to say a credible legal dispute remains as to the legality of the war. Finally, I would just mention——

Senator Ryan

That is an extraordinary assertion from an official of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Deputy M. Higgins

I can tell you, Chairman, that these matters are going to be replied to.

Senator Ryan

Chairman, I did not come here to be propagandised by the Department of Foreign Affairs. We were very reasonable with people really but that is pushing our tolerance and my patience too far.

Chairman

I think Mr. McBain is just stating the position as he knows it.

Deputy M. Higgins

Chairman, we have listened to Mr/ McBain with all the courtesy to which he is entitled but frankly, we have been through this. Mr. Mannix has suggested there were two views in relation to legality. This issue is now being opened up again. I intend to return to it if it is opened again because I will tell you who exactly was in favour of one opinion and who, the other. The 15 deans of law faculties in the United Kingdom, including Oxford and Cambridge, are on one side, the British Attorney General is on his own on the other. We can discuss this if you wish, but also if you, Chairman, allow a discussion on Shannon, let us discuss the Defence Act 1954, as well as Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution and let us talk about just one flight that was disallowed only a few months ago. Let us discuss why the relevant Department, Ministers and Ministers of State in the 1954 Act were consulted as to the wearing of uniforms, what was being carried in planes, arrangements in relation to overflights and let us hear whether alternatives were discussed at Cabinet in relation to the use of Shannon, as I understand they were. Let us hear that.

Chairman

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy M. Higgins

Let us have a dialogue, as you put it, yourself.

Mr. McBain

Finishing up on that point, Chairman, I want to refer to the Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil on 20 March where he said the withdrawal of such facilities at this time could not but be seen by any objective observer as a radical and far-reaching change in our foreign policy.

Chairman

I would like to thank Mr. McBain and, of course, Mr. Mannix and Mr. Gunning for making their presentations before thecommittee. If there are any questions outstanding we will bring them to you later. Thank you for your informative and patient contribution. We are not going to resolve these matters here. You have outlined things as you see them. I know we are still awaiting confirmation on the numbers of people killed. We have asked the International Red Cross, which was there and it could not tell us. We need much moreinformation. What matters most, I believe, is that we get on with the reconstruction of Iraq and that we get democracy there as early as possible.

I would now like to go into private session to discuss the remaining items on the agenda.

The joint committee adjourned at 6 p.m.sine die.