Senator Bulbulia has given notice under Standing Order 29 that she proposes to raise the motion on the loss of life of 290 innocent people as a result of US action in the Persian Gulf, the need for the Government to voice their deep regret and to pursue every avenue open to them to bring about peace and stability in the region. The Minister will be given at least 20 minutes to reply, so I will be calling him not later than 12.10 a.m.
Adjournment Under Standing Order 29. - Iranian Airbus Disaster: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move: "That the Seanad do now adjourn."
I express my thanks and pleasure that it has been found possible to debate this motion this evening, because the loss of 290 lives in one tragic accident is something that affects the whole of mankind. Most of us, I assume, believe in the universality of man and in the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God. An action that blasts 290 people into eternity is something about which all right-minded people would express concern and regret and would seek to have an adequate explanation and the fullest possible information.
I was prompted to raise this matter because I was somewhat disappointed at the absence of any Government statement on it. I understand that condolences have been expressed to the Iranian Government on the tragic loss of human life but my understanding is that no public statement of this fact has been made. I noted in The Irish Times of today, 5 July, that a Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman said that it was not Government policy to issue statements on matters which do not touch Ireland directly. I am very unhappy about that statement. To me it is a sort of bureaucratic double-speak; it could be about anything at all. It does not reflect the fact that 290 people were blown into eternity by an action, whether committed willingly or accidentally. The questions must be asked: are we indifferent? Do we approve?
I hope that this debate will give an opportunity to the Government to state clearly, unequivocally and publicly what should have been stated and it will be very worth while if as many Senators as possible contribute to this debate.
This terrible loss of life does affect Ireland directly and I hope to develop that in the course of my contribution. It is important to discuss exactly what happened in so far as it is possible. This was by any standard an appalling incident. Two hundred and ninety civilian passengers, most of them Iranian, were killed when the Iran Air Flight 655 crashed into the Gulf on Sunday after being hit by two missiles fired from the US guided missile destroyer the Vincennes. The aircraft was seven minutes into a scheduled 45 minute flight from Bandak Abbas, a port in the south of Iran, to Dubai, and the United States is being criticised by friend and foe. The commander of the Vincennes would appear to have had considerable doubt about the identification of the target before firing his missiles despite the fact that the Vincennes had a sophisticated radar and missile system — probably the most sophisticated system in the world — and it failed to determine what kind of aircraft was closing on the ship.
I welcome to the Visitors' Gallery two members of the staff of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their presence here this evening is an indication of the seriousness and gravity with which they view this most tragic incident. I understand that the Iranian Ambassador, His Excellency Bahran Ghaseni paid a formal visit to Iveagh House today and officially requested that the Irish Government should condemn this inhuman act. The considered view of the Iranian Government and their ambassador here is that all available indicators show that this action was deliberate. However, we must await the outcome of a full inquiry and more detailed information before we can pass absolute judgment as to what caused this terrible tragedy because there are very many questions which require answering.
There is a question about the seeming failure of the airbus to respond to radio signals; there is a question about the flight path of the aircraft; there is a question about its transponder which would have identified the plane and which was apparently switched off.
I am pleased that the United States Department of Defence have so speedily instituted a formal inquiry into the circumstances, but I contend that an international commission should be established immediately. I was interested that tonight on the 10 o'clock news on RTE 1 it was announced that the Secretary General of the United Nations, Perez de Cuellar, called for a similar international commission of inquiry. It is obvious that so great is the mistrust between the Governments of Iran and the United States that an inquiry instituted by either of those bodies would not give satisfaction to either country, nor would it satisfy the international community. The establishment of an international commission would go a long way towards allaying the legitimate concerns of so many people right around the world which have surfaced as a consequence of this dreadful incident.
I am very unhappy about some of the phrases used by the President of the United States. Some of his statements have been, to say the very least, unfortunate. It has been called by him an understandable accident and on Sunday he called it a proper defensive action. I suppose, if one were to choose, an understandable accident is slightly better than a proper defensive action, but neither of these statements really reflects the full horror of what has occurred. The suggestion has been made that the President of the United States should have limited himself to a simple statement of responsibility, coupled with a promise to pay generous compensation to the families of the victims and, indeed, many American citizens have voiced their concern at the absence of a statement which has indicated a willingness to pay compensation to the victims. The sums involved in the context of the amount of money which the American Government spend on defence would be minuscule and one could contrast it with th cost of keeping the Vincennes on station for a week. However, the moral gains would be absolutely enormous and I hope I will be joined by other Senators in calling on the United States to do what it has done in the past when similar incidents have occurred, to make generous payment to those families who have been bereaved, not that it can restore their loved ones, not that it can undo the hurt, the pain, the damage but it would make a point and it would ensure that there was at least some evidence of genuine concern and decency about what has happened. It is important to talk about the effects of this incident.
I now come to the point where I feel the silence from Government here could have prolonged the agony of the hostages. We are concerned, in particular, about the hostage, Brian Keenan, from Northern Ireland. Many commentators, and I have read deeply about this over the last two days, feel that the lives of the hostages in Lebanon may have been endangered or their agony at the very least prolonged as a consequence of this incident.
The modern faction within Iran will certainly have been undermined by what has happened. I think they will find it very difficult to sustain themselves in their moderate views in a country where there is a very strong tradition of Islamic fundamentalism and where a moderate position is difficult to hold firm to. The incident will have damaged the hope of an early rapprochment between Iran and the West. Any people observing the position will be aware that over the past few weeks some quite worth while useful negotiations had been going on and these may very well have been put on ice as a consequence of this terrible incident.
It is important to examine United States policy in the Gulf. It is true to say that certain benefits have flowed from this. It is important that a major international waterway should be kept open. It is important that oil supplies for the West and Japan should be secured. It is important that the Gulf States should be protected against attack from hostile forces in the area, and that neutral shipping should be protected. But the question must be asked, is the scale of the United States naval presence in the Gulf too large? Increasingly liberal rules of engagement add to the likelihood of violent incident and commentators have stated that the rules of engagement were changed very recently and that the change had not been communicated to other people for whom this information would have been significant and that that is not unconnected with the incident. What has been played out in the Gulf is a very dangerous game. All war is dangerous. All war carries the risk of the loss of life and we have seen the effects of that on 3 and 4 July. What is required is greater circumspection, more restraint and above all competence, because while there is always the likelihood of human error even in the most sophisticated situation — and certainly the equipment on the Vincennes would appear to be the most sophisticated in the world — it would appear that there was a monumental lack of competence and that is to be absolutely deplored.
I come back to the fact that the Government did not choose to make a public statement of its regret at the loss of life. I am not necessarily asking that they would condemn the American involvement in all of this because the facts have to be clearly established; there has to be an international commission of inquiry, but I do not see why a public expression of sympathy should not have been made known to the Irish people. I understand that the Pope has sent condolences and messages of sympathy to the bereaved families and has let it be known. We have sent a message of condolences but we really did not let it be made known to the public. Expressions of regret have come from many other countries all over the world: Japan, Australia, Egypt, Holland and China, the list is endless. In some ways we have been muted in our response to this in marked contrast to our attitudes when other incidents occurred and when we were less shy about coming forward. I query the reasons for that.
The incident underscores the need to end the seven year Gulf War. The involvement of the United States in the Gulf is not necessarily conducive to peace and stability in the region, and we have had the proof of that with this terrible incident. Iran is exhibiting a maturity, a surprising maturity, in the face of this dreadful occurence. We are all aware of the situation in Iran and we all know of the very strong fundamentalist forces which prevail in some quarters, and given that situation to date they have shown an extraordinary responsibility and restraint in their reaction. I hope they will turn the tragedy to serve the interests of Iran and that they will use it and use the public sympathy, which exists right around the world, to press for concessions at the United Nations Security Council and within the United Nations generally. I hope Ireland will not be found hiding in the thickets of diplomacy when it comes to assisting in a quest for peace in that benighted area of the world.
A muted response from this Government could, as I have stated, have serious consequences for the hostages. We must remember that those who have captured numbers of hostages in Lebanon are the Hezbollah Movement and they are Iranian backed. They are a volatile group of people. They could very easily fly off the handle and retaliate against the hostages. I sincerely hope that this will not be the case and that ordeal of the hostages will not be prolonged as a result. I fail to see why a spokesman from the Department of Foreign Affairs could say that this incident does not impact or impinge directly on the Irish people. Given the fact that an Irishman is held hostage at the behest of groupings such as this, I feel there is a case to be made and that it does impinge on this country apart from the fact that we share a common humanity with all of those people who met their deaths so suddenly, so dramatically and so terribly.
It could be interpreted that we were more concerned about our relationships with the United Nations than with the safety of the hostages, and I would be unhappy if that interpretation was put on our silence. We must ask the question, and certainly when the facts come to light conclusively are we criticial or uncritical of the United States in this action? Do we admire this action? How do we feel about it? I was interested to read a quotation from a United Kingdom Minister of Defence spokesman who stated that: "I think it is general knowledge that the Americans have got rather more aggressive rules of engagement than we have" and if evidence were needed to that effect we certainly have had it in this particular incident.
I regard it as a privilege to have been able to raise this issue. I am grateful that it was accepted and that we are having a debate and that there are so many people in the House this evening. This House has been criticised in the past for not responding with numerical presence to debates of importance. This is not the case here tonight. The presence of so many Senators at this late hour is eloquent testimony to the fact that they care deeply, that they are concerned and wish to see a public expression of deep regret at this incident, and that they wish Government to pursue every avenue open to them to bring about peace and stability in the region. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and also the contributions of my colleagues on this motion.
I compliment Senator Bulbulia on her alacrity in having this motion put down before the House in the immediate aftermath of the tragic events in the Gulf, and I join with her in expressing very deep regret and deep sympathy with the Iranian people on this tragic loss of life. I also join with Senator Bulbulia in acknowledging the presence in the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery of representatives of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, an indication of the seriousness with which the representatives of Iran in this country take the debate which is before the House.
It is never easy to stand in a Parliament and express genuine sympathy particularly at such a distance as we are in Ireland from Iran and the events in the Gulf generally. The difficulty arises in attempting to convey from a small country on the periphery of Europe to a very large and, to many of our countrymen, a foreign country in the widest sense, the feeling of shock and revulsion many people feel at the action that resulted in the loss of 290 people. To put it in perspective, if 290 people had been lost over our air space and those 290 people, God between us and all harm, were Irish, not only would there be a day of mourning, there would be a month of mourning.
It is important for Ireland as a nonaligned country, as a neutral country in the EC, in expressing its sympathy with the Iranian people and with the families and immediate relatives of those who have been so suddenly and tragically killed, that we should not attempt to apportion blame at this early time. In that spirit I welcome Senator Bulbulia's endorsement of the call by the Secretary General of the United Nations for the setting up of an international inquiry.
The sad developments in the Gulf since the Iran-Iraq conflict started in 1969 dictate that such an inquiry is the only way in which both the participants in this instance would perhaps accept conclusions. Iran, a country that constantly refers to the United States as the great Satan, could hardly be referred to as objective in its attitudes towards the United States or any commission that would emerge from the deliberations of that country's military structure. Similarly the United States, a country who experienced the humiliation and distress of seeing its embassy staff, legitimate diplomats going about their legitimate business, taken as hostages, could not be relied upon to institute an inquiry that would be accepted by the Iranians as impartial and objective. Therein lies a dilemma. I reiterate that Ireland as a non-aligned country is a neutral country and considering the history of the relationship between Iran and the United States and the on going Iran-Iraq war we could at best act only as an honest broker rather than taking sides.
I am very conscious while speaking in our national Parliament on this issue that there are in Lebanon hostages allegedly held by the Hezbollah group who, if one is to believe news reports emanating from that area over a long number of years, make no secret of their allegiance and loyalty to the Imam Khomeini in Iran. Consequently, any remarks I make, and I am sure my colleagues will agree, must be tempered by awareness of the tragic reality that among those hostages is one of our own citizens, Brian Keenan. Anybody who read in the Observer the reports by the returned French hostages on the week following their release, of the experiences they and their still imprisoned colleagues suffered has to be very circumspect in any comments or opinions expressed about the Iranian régime.
I feel very strong sympathy this evening for the families and relatives of those hostages, especially the family of Brian Keenan in Belfast. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran present if they have any influence and compassion to convey to the Hezbollah group, either directly or indirectly, the feelings of the vast majority of Irish people that Brian Keenan's long darkness and that of the other hostages should end, and I think of that great churchman, Terry Waite, in the same context. Against that background this debate is taking place in relation to the loss of life of 290 Iranians. It is sad that one must link the events of last weekend with the ongoing events in Beirut. I wish it were not so but it is a fact of international life.
Senator Bulbulia has questioned the legitimacy of the United States in the Gulf. I do not feel it is my right to question that legitimacy any more than it is my right to question the legitimacy of the ongoing conflict between Iran and Iraq other than to express the hope to see it ended, and ended soon. However some questions must be raised and I would be remiss if I were not at least to put on record my own troubled observations about the events of last weekend. I do not wish in any way to diminish the enormity of the loss of life that was experienced, but the Straits of Hormuz is today one of the most dangerous waterways in the world. The high level of military activity in that area, the US presence notwithstanding, due to the conflict between Iran and Iraq, means that civilians going about their legitimate business in this area have in some cases lost their lives and in many other cases, their ships were damaged. Yet, a civilian airliner with 290 innocent civilians on board chose its flightpath across this waterway when there was a confrontation between the USS Vincennes and a number of Iranian gunboats.
I hope that the commission of inquiry will establish the circumstances surrounding the decision to allow that airliner to take off. I will go no further than that. We must be fair to both sides. When reading the initial news stories one could not help but be horrified at the manner in which two surface to air missiles hit a civilian aircraft. Until the matter has been fully investigated by a competent commission of inquiry, by an acceptable commission of inquiry, questions raised by the actions of the US commander on the USS Vincennes, by the Iranian military command who were involved in combat with the US boat, and the take off of a civilian airliner, remain unanswered.
On a wider front, the implications of the events of last weekend for the continuing conflict in the Gulf, and the relations between the United States and Iran will need to be addressed. In a political context, this was probably the worst time for such an incident. This tragedy occurred at a time when the more moderate elements in the Islamic Republic of Iran seemed to be emerging strongly. I accept that Mr. Rafsanjani and his moderates face a severe difficulty in calming the wild men in his administration, especially those religious mullahs whose brand of Muslim fundamentalism makes the rest of Islam and the wider non-Islamic world shiver.
Recent events seem to indicate that there was a thaw setting in in that area. The activities of the Syrian Army in West Beirut, in reducing the influence of the Hezbollah, the identification of the area in which the hostages were being kept, the appointment of Mr. Rafsanjani as Supreme Commander of the Iranian Forces, the recent decision to release the French hostages, and the equally recent decision of the United Kingdom to reopen negotiations on payment of a loan to Iran, all these straws in the wind seemed to indicate that a break in the deadlock was imminent. Those straws in the wind coupled with the tragic military losses or military gains, whichever side of the fence you are on — the losses by Iran of territory in recent offences by the Iraqis and the regaining of Iraqi land, and the harmorrhage of Iran from the ongoing military losses suffered by its conscripts — all seemed to suggest that, perhaps at last, the beginning of the end of the world's longest internecine conflict was in sight.
Two surface to air missiles seem to have set back all these initiatives. I pray that it is not so. I pray to the same God as the Islamic people that, notwithstanding the deep shock, revulsion and anger against their sworn enemy, the United States, all that has been experienced by the people of Iran will be tempered by compassion. Sometimes Christians think they have a monopoly on compassion, but there is much in the Koran to commend it to Christians. The population of Iran adhere very closely to the tenets of the Koran, perhaps more than many of us Christians adhere to the tenets of the Bible. I hope moderation will rule the day.
The appointment of Mr. Rafsanjani as the Supreme Commander by the Imam Khomenei was a wise decision. Mr. Rafsanjani has emerged as a man of moderation, a pragmatic politician. As Supreme Commander, his efforts to combine the revolutionary guards and the regular Iranian Army into a united structure augurs well for the future of that sad country.
I have little else to add to this debate other than to reiterate my deep sympathy and deep regret to the families and relatives of the 290 Iranian citizens who so tragically lost their lives last weekend and to hope that even the moderate element in the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran will not retaliate and so escalate an already delicate and difficult international situation. I know there is an old saying "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but if one keeps continually gouging out eyes and taking away teeth, eventually there is nothing left but emptiness, and then what sort of a world would we leave as a legacy to our children?
In common with everybody else in this House and not only in this country but in the civilised world, I would like to express my shock and outrage at the bringing down of a civilian aircraft by military action. It seems to me that this is a most deplorable situation. It is one that has occurred with increasing frequency in recent years. The attention of the House has already been drawn to a similar incident involving the Russian airforce and the Korean jet liner. The Israeli airforce, in 1983, in comparable circumstances, also downed a Libyan civilian aircraft. It is a regrettable fact that these incidents appear to be occurring with increasing frequency. Nobody who is not made of stone and who saw on the television news the faces of the relatives of those who were on that plane and the grief they so clearly expressed could do other than associate themselves with the strongest expression of human solidarity with them and share in their grief as human beings.
It greatly surprises me, particularly in the light of the utterly inadequate response of President Reagan when he said that this was an understandable accident — I do not understand it. I refuse to understand it — that our Government have not seen fit to make public comment condemning this situation. The excuse, as I understand it, that it does not touch Irish people directly, is not, in my opinion, a valid excuse and is not one that is congruent with the Irish Government's policy, quite correctly, on another occasion when the Belgrano was sunk by the illegal activities of President Reagan's comrade in arms, Mrs. Thatcher. The Irish Government at that time had the courage and foresight, and had the correct understanding of what the meaning of neutrality was, to distance themselves from that act which I consider, as do many of my countrymen, to have been a criminal act. Apart from that, I would remind the House of the words of the great poet John Donne who said with regard to the deaths of all human beings: “No man is an island entire of it self. When the bell tolls, send not to know for whom it tolls, it tolls for thee”. I believe that witnessing the grief and suffering of those relatives, who are not all Iranians, who also included among their numbers other nationalities for whom we also must grieve, innocent civilian travellers, we must call into question the intentions and activities of the American Navy in this area. I will return to this.
Having said that, I would like to make it perfectly clear, that my condolences are directed to the Iranian people and to the relatives of those who were injured and not to the Iranian regime, because I do not believe that the Iranian regime has the moral right to inherit the grief of those who were done to death in this fashion. I remind the House that while this regime may contain moderates, there are degrees of moderation, and moderation in Iran may mean one thing; it means a very different thing to me. I welcome the opportunity to say this in the presence of the representatives of this regime. I cannot regard as sensitive to human rights a Government who clearly connive at hijacking, which is a related crime to the crime that was committed against the people of the world yesterday evening, and which openly barters for human lives. It does not please me to learn that some of the nations of the world are prepared to return to the medieval system of ransom. It does not please me that a sovereign Government, however constituted, however arrived at, should consider this an appropriate method of conducting their international discourse, as the Iranian regime so clearly does.
I do not believe for one minute that being mealy-mouthed in this House is going to ameliorate the condition of those unfortunate people who are held very clearly at what is, if not directly, very close to being directly, the behest of the Iranian regime. It would also point out that in a very curious way it was disclosed recently that this Iranian regime is in some measure complicit with the American Government for the instruments of torture which were supplied to the secret service of the Shah of Iran. Here again there could, perhaps, be an international inquiry because, as I understand it, this machinery, redolent of the kind of machinery that was produced by Krupps and J.G. Farben during the Second World War, was sold by American companies to the secret police of the regime of the Shah. What is the moral responsibility of the manufacturers? Are they not to be held accountable? Where is it now, I would like to know? Is it true that it is currently being employed by the present regime? I would like also that it should be transmitted back to Teheran that I, for one, am not impressed by a regime making statements with regard to human rights that has openly persecuted, humiliated and murdered so many thousands of its own citizens, that has isolated the Baha'i religion and subjected them to persecution, that has done to death and mutilated homosexual persons under its jurisdiction in its regime and has used that accusation, whether justifiable or not, to mutilate those people. They have not the right to assume the role of defenders of human rights or to inherit the grief of those persons who were so tragically killed the other evening.
I will pass on from that to direct myself specifically to the question of the events in the Gulf of Hormuz. It seems to me very clear that, not only outside the United States but also within the United States, there are serious concerns about the involvement of the United States Navy in this area. I would like to echo those concerns. I notice that in the newspapers of today for example, what are coyly described as inflexible operating procedures may have been responsible for this calamity. Again, notice the euphemistically technological jargon that is used to cover what is, in fact, a human tragedy of very considerable dimensions. Was this a necessary consequence of the presence of the American Navy in this part of the world? A report in the World News Section of The Irish Times from Dubai suggested sailors aboard the USS Vincennes may have panicked when they shot down the jet. What kind of response in military terms is panic, particularly when it involves the loss of innocent civilian lives?
Here I may say in parenthesis that, I have been rereading the correspondence of George Bernard Shaw and he makes a point which we may well feel it useful to ponder. He refused, during the Second World War, to condemn the bombing of civilian targets because he felt that warfare had become so abominable that catastrophes such as the bombing of civilian targets, such as large scale civilian casualties and such as the kind of thing that we witnessed last night were, rather than being regrettable, extremely useful in the sense that humanity was indivisible and it would actually act as a kind of pressure point upon Governments to bring home to them the real outrage, horror and mutilation of war in a way which they were apparently immune from feeling when it was simply soldiers, whether professional soldiers or conscripts, who were involved.
There is also the question with regard to the technical elements, such as the transponder on board the aeroplane, the fact that there was apparently some degree of harassment by Iranian gunboats, which was perhaps understandable to use President Reagan's term, but unwise. I think one of the most important points I would like to put on the record is that senior strategists within the American hierarchy of officialdom have stated clearly that they do not regard the presence of the American Navy in this area as either wise or tactically useful. I would like to quote what Admiral Gene Le Roque, Director of the Centre for Defence Studies in Washington who is critical of his own Government's position in this matter said. He said that the captain of the USS Vincennes clearly lacked adequate information when he ordered the missiles to be fired. He went on to say and I quote:
We have no business in my view no military reason, to be there. We have every right to be there — it's international waters — but we do not contribute to the peaceful solution of that war by our presence.
It seems that if the United Nations is to be of any use at all it should have a naval presence there. After all, this small country honourably contributes to a military peacekeeping presence. Is it beyond the capacity of the United Nations to organise an international, and, therefore, one would hope non-controversial, naval presence to keep open what is a vital international waterway. Of course, the Iranian regime clearly understands that this is a vital international waterway and that is one of the reasons they are applying pressure in this particular area.
In conclusion, I would like to support strongly the call by Senator Bulbulia for the establishment of an international commission which I believe should be under the auspices of the United Nations and if the findings of that international commission should be, as one surmises in the circumstances they must be, some compensation should be paid to the relatives. I would end by saying that nothing could be more cynical, more deplorable and more morally repulsive to me and to many other citizens than for any Government to construe a situation in such a way that it operates to the disadvantage of innocent civilians needlessly caught up in this tragic situation in the Middle East. I hope the strongest possible message of outrage, and not of mealy-mouthed pleading, will go back to Teheran that we as a people who have a long tradition of suffering and a tradition of valuing individual human rights cannot take anything but the most serious view of a situation in which one of our citizens, Brian Keenan, is held in Beirut and in which the representative of a distinguished head of one of the Christian Churches is treated with such flagrant contempt with the connivance of a regime in Teheran which purports to have a religious basis for its political convictions.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Before calling on the next speaker let me remind Senators that there are 15 minutes remaining before the Chair will be obliged to call on the Minister. Senators Connor, Brendan Ryan, Ross and O'Toole, are offering. There is no restriction on the amount of time that individual Senators may wish to take but perhaps they might bear in mind that there are now four Senators offering with only about 15 minutes remaining.
This Senator will be the soul of brevity. I support his motion. Indeed I wish to formally second it. I feel particularly sad to have to speak on the problems of this region so soon after my contribution on the region a week ago. On Tuesday evening of last week I raised on the Adjournment of this House the plight of Brian Keenan, a citizen of this country, held hostage in Beiruit. My contribution then had to encompass the politics and the entangled and intractible state of political affairs in that part of the world. The Chair will remember that I said then that the Irish Government should take advantage of the changing attitude of Iranian foreign policy towards the West and seek to use the better climate to the advantage of unfortunate people like Brian Keenan. I remember saying at the time that the diplomatic thaw has created an atmosphere and a time to talk about the release of Brian Keenan that is — and that time is now. I said that another incident in the Gulf or somewhere else could blow the air of détente to pieces. So sadly that incident happened. It came with devastating suddenness, with a truly awful and tragic loss of life a few days ago. Now the least our Government can do is express their regret that this incident took place. We should, as a country which is very friendly with the United States of America and not at all unfriendly with the Islamic Republic of Iran, seek to use our good offices with both Governments to bring about something bordering on normal relations between them or at least to do something that might end the state of war between them.
The Gulf area is a cockpit in superpower rivalries for all kinds of strategic reasons, rather in the way that poor Belgium was the cockpit of rivalry between the centre and Axis powers in 1914. This kind of incident has all the potential to ignite into the ultimate Armageddon involving the superpowers. There are rights and wrongs on both sides of this row and the tensions go back a long way. True, there was much resentment among many ordinary Persians at the role of the West in the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. There was resentment over the US continued support for the Pahlavi dynasty long after it was evident that the Shah and his peacock throne was a repressive tyranny.
After the overthrow of the Shah we had the implacable hostility of the Khomeini Government towards the United States, culminating in the seizure of the US embassy and the taking hostage of the embassy staff, an act totally unacceptable by any standard of civilised relations between two countries. There was the execution of the Kurds and other opponents of the new regime carried out publicly, photographed and filmed publicly, for the world media. These incidents did enormous damage to the international reputation of Iran. Many observers, this one included, felt that Iran, occupying a part of the world where western civilisiation was born and flourished for golden ages, had somehow by the excesses shown in the early days of the revolution, stepped out of the realm of civilisation.
While I believe that the Reagan administration is fundamentally hostile to the administration in Iran, President Carter who was President at the time of the Iranian revolution was not fundamentally hostile towards the Iranian revolution and would have gone a long way towards establishing normal friendly relations with Teheran after Pahlavi but he was thwarted from doing so, particularly by the case of the embassy hostages. Since the advent of the Ronald Reagan presidency in 1980 the relationship and the attitude towards the revolutionary regime in Iran has been frozen in deep hostility. I suppose it is true that the hostility is and was fully reciprocated by Teheran but one cannot escape the comment or the remark of Jesse Jackson, a candidate in the current American presidential race. He said American policy in that area of the world was one of guided missiles and misguided policies. However, in recent months there were signs that the past ten years of hostility and isolation of Iran might be coming to an end. Power in Iran was clearly passing to a group of pragmatists lead by Mr. Rafsanjani. Mr. Rafsanjani has shown clear signs of statesmanship and courage. He clearly wants a negotiated settlement of this awful war with Iraq and in that quest he has used a language of moderation and reason. Recently in another hopeful move he has become the effective commander-in-chief of the Iranian army and very evidently he speaks to the world in the language of reconciliation.
Only last Saturday he very courageously, and I would say magnamiously, said that Iran had often pushed those who could be neutral into hostility and had done nothing to attract those who could be their friends. We will not go into reasons for the present presence and build up of US forces in the Gulf. We all agree that attacks on international shipping, in international waters, is unacceptable and intolerable and the role of America in coming in as an international policeman to protect shipping and to stop mine laying in international waters was admirable, if indeed it was not enviable.
However, there comes a time when these military build ups become more provocative then useful and this in my opinion is what happened on Sunday last when the military presence went overboard and almost 300 innocent civilian plane passengers died, echoes of the Lusitania. It is only correct that we should ask how this terrible miscalculation took place. The US are the greatest military power in the world. Their forces have at their disposal the most sophisticated technology, much of it delivery technology attached to nuclear weapons. We must ask after what happened on Sunday whether this technology is as reliable and as accurate as it is supposed to be? The USS Vincennes, we are told, is one of the most advanced guided missile cruisers in the world, with not just the most up to date tracking equipment, but with tracking and technological equipment which has been described as futuristic. Why then did this technology not identify this aircraft as an ordinary wide bodied passenger plane? This kind of identification capability is, we are told, elementary to the technology on board this ship. The plane shot down is one of the most technically advanced passenger aircraft in the world with the latest transponder transmission to identify it. So there should have been no mismatch or no misunderstanding technologywise between ship and aircraft.
We also query the suitability of the personnel who operate and have their hands on the levers of the terrible fire power of the US. Are some of those people when subjected to the heat and the reality of combat able to react properly and not become trigger happy and liable under pressure to make terrible mistakes and miscalculations? These questions are asked by a friend of America and this friend of America has no problem in putting his name to this motion calling on our Government to publicly express our deepest regret on behalf of the Irish people that this awful incident had to take place and that we should do all in our power to see that this kind of thing never happens again by seeking to remove the reason for war between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
We also must appeal to our Iranian friends, through the Chair, not to overreact over this. Restraint is always the better part of valour. We appeal to them to continue their recent policy of seeking better relations with those whom they have seen in the recent past as hostile or unfriendly. We plead with them to do all possible to ensure that in this time of grief and high emotion the hostages in Beirut are not harmed. Nothing could turn a real feeling of sympathy and sorrow for what has happened, which is not just a feeling of sympathy for the relatives of those who lost their lives, but is in a real sense a feeling of sympathy, condolence and friendship towards Iran itself. This ironically creates the atmosphere to achieve what we know Rafsanjani and his pragmatic friends want to achieve.
Finally, let us unreservedly do what the motion asks. In 1983 we had no difficulty in expressing our regret and indeed our shock and horror when Russia shot down at Korean passenger airline over Sakhalin Island. Ronald Reagan said that incident was a crime against humanity and a massacre and at this incident he said it was a terrible human tragedy. We should have no difficult as a small neutral country of seeing it as a terrible human tragedy in every sense of the word and from every point of view so let us publicly express our regret.
Since I am determined to allow my two colleagues to speak, I think I now have about a minute and a half.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair has negotiated an extra five minutes. There are nine minutes remaining. You have three minutes each.
The Chairman is a man of admirable qualities.
Following my iniative——
Let us not waste a second.
I compliment both the Minister and the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I am a bit astonished, I could say a lot about the regime in Iran, but I remember on 15 and 16 April 1986 when Korean Airlines Flight 007 was shot down by the Soviet Union, there was no circumspection about the denunciations then. Words like murder and savagery and brutality etc. were thrown around with absolute abandon not just in this country but all over Western Europe and North America. Nobody had the least inhibition about using language like that. Anybody who wants to read a fairly objective account of what happened then should read this morning's London Independent. The parallels are frightening and the circumstances do not differ that much. Yet we now have the good guys doing something equally appalling.
I condemned what the Soviet Union did without any qualms or reservations. If people cannot organise their awesome military might in a way that guarantees the security of civilian airlines it is highly questionable whether that power or that military might is any use to anybody, if it becomes a greater threat than the alleged threat they are trying to counter. This particular incident has caused more deaths than the whole of the activities in the Gulf prior to this. It is time that somebody said quite bluntly, you had better have a rethink. What happened in the Gulf in the last couple of days was, I choose to believe, an unfortunate accident but it cannot be dismissed because it was an accident. People who have accidents are often culpable, accidents and non culpability are not mutually exclusive. Because it was an accident does not mean that those who caused it were not culpable.
Three hundred people were killed because either the United States authorities cannot give their naval commanders proper orders, the naval commanders cannot run their vessels properly, or the people who are in charge of the weaponry on those vessels cannot run their business properly. Whichever the option, the truth is that an appalling mistake was made and those who made that mistake were in the wrong and they should not be excluded or equivocated about. What they did was wrong and it does not matter who the regime was, it does not matter what you think of it, it was still wrong. It is particularly ironic to suggest that because you disapprove of a régime the victims are somehow less innocent. If anything it makes them more innocent.
Nobody suggested that.
What happened was wrong. Those who did it were wrong. They deserve to be reprimanded, if not condemned, because what they did was wrong. A fundamental question mark hangs over the alleged reasons for their presence there. They refuse to participate in an international peace-keeping force. They want all the action for themselves. There are other reasons why it was wrong. It should not have happened and it deserves to be condemned with the same ferocity that the Soviet Union were quite rightly condemned.
I should like to point out one extraordinary flaw in the Government's reaction to this. The Government said, in response to a question about why they have not issued the required condemnation of this, that they do not issue statements if it does not affect Ireland directly. That is nonsense. Do we have no moral authority in the Government? I should like to refer to a statement quite rightly issued by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs this afternoon. He said, referring to a previous incident about apartheid, that on that occasion he renewed the call of successive Irish Governments for the immediate and unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and his fellow political prisoners and welcomed the opportunity the debate provided to renew this call. That is in direct contravention to the statement issued by the Government about this issue. They are going to have to make up their minds. They cannot take the moral high ground on one issue and then not take the moral high ground on an issue when it affects America.
Senators
Hear, hear.
I seriously condemn the moral cowardice of the Government to take a stand on this issue. No one is asking the Government to judge what happened. We are asking them to stand up to the Americans and condemn what happened and the consequences of what happened. That is consistent with neutrality and the sort of moral high ground the Government are rightly capable of taking on other issues, and rightly took this afternoon.
I shall conclude by saying that while I, like everybody else in this House, deplore what happened — I do not know what happened but I deplore the loss of innocent lives — I would like to reiterate and underline what my colleague, Senator Norris said a few minutes ago. The Iranian régime have no right whatsoever to exploit this for their own international benefit. No régime I have come across in the world today has less respect for minorities or for human life than the Iranian régime. It is wrong that this debate, and other world reaction, should be exploited by the Iranians for that purpose.
Let us condemn what happened but let us not forget that this is the régime which is involved in hostage-taking, that this is the régime which is involved in hijacking, that this is the régime that condoned the storming of the US Embassy in Iran and that this is the régime that has murdered many of its minority citizens without any regard whatsoever for human life. It is right that we should remember that today. The message should go out, loud and clear, from this House, if we are to pass a motion of this sort, that while we deplore and express horror at what happened, that régime cannot take it as any message of comfort for them about their other activities.
I should like to thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for the extension of time and also the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine. We had a discussion here some weeks ago about the atrocity in Lisburn, where the victims happened to be wearing British army uniforms. At that time I took great exception to linking them with the régime they represented. Similarly, I do not beleive that the medieval and unsustainable Iranian régime is relevant to the point here today.
My views on it are quite simple and clear. I could never support what is happening in Iran but the lesson to be learned from the event on Sunday night was that the most sophisticated war weaponry which can wreak havoc and deliver murder and slaughter with pinpoint accuracy from a range of over 1,000 miles, failed to distinguish between a passenger plane and a bomber. The reason it is important to recall that at this point is because those who peddle in that hardware tell us that this will be our defence in the future, they tell us that we can rely on them. Those same people, who now want the American Star Wars proposals and who cannot be relied upon to recognise aggression from anything else, are carrying the future of the world in a suitcase.
I cannot find the words to express the horror at the death of over 200 adults and 50 or 60 children. There are no words to describe it. I do not think anything can justify what happened or the reasons for it. It was totally wrong and deserves to be condemned. It is a reflection on the régime who had charge of the plane and on those whose bomb brought down that innocent passenger plane. Neutrality is no excuse. We have a clear duty to condemn and criticise this kind of action, whether it comes from those who purport to be our friends or our enemies.
Ar an chéad dul síos ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí go léir a labhair sa díospóireacht seo anocht. Gabhaim buíochas chomh maith leis na Seanadóirí nach bhfuair seans labhairt ar an ábhar seo ach a d'fhan ag an uair mhall seo den oíche. Taispeánann sé an imní atá orthu agus, dar ndóigh, orainn go léir tar éis na traigéide nuair a cailleadh 290 daoine ar an Domhnach seo caite.
Leaving all of the other considerations aside, the shooting down of the Iran Airline plane on 3 July, resulting in the death of 290 people, is a human tragedy of the highest order. Like everyone else who heard the news, the Government were shocked at the terrible loss of so many innocent lives. The Government have conveyed to the Government of Iran, through diplomatic channels, our profound sympathy at the tragic loss and have expressed to the friends and relatives of the victims our sincere condolences in their bereavement. I know that Members of this House would wish me to avail of this occasion to repeat their heartfelt expressions of deep regret of what has occurred.
Senators have, understandably, been concerned with the question of responsibility for these events. There is clearly a conflict between the United States on the one side and Iran on the other on the facts of the case which were at the origin of this tragic occurrence. It will be appreciated that it is not possible for the Government to adjudicate on the facts which are in dispute. What we have done is to express our deep regret that so many innocent lives have been lost.
It is possible to say, however, that one of the contributing factors to the tragedy is the effective state of war that exists in the Gulf and the threat posed thereby to the important principle of freedom of navigation in international waters. The continuing conflict between Iran and Iraq lies at the heart of this instability.
The position of the Government with regard to the conflict is clear and unequivocal. In our view the UN Security Council, the body to which the international community has assigned primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, is the appropriate forum through which a solution should be found. By adopting Resolution 598 the Security Council have shown that they are concerned to discharge their responsibilities in this regard. Resolution 598 sets out a framework for finding a solution to the conflict between Iran and Iraq. It is now almost one year since the resolution was adopted and we are aware that discussions on its implementation have been conducted with both parties by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The tragic events of last Sunday demonstrate the urgency of finding a way in which both parties can agree to find a solution within the UN framework.
Here I believe it would be appropriate for me to say that innocent third parties such as Brian Keenan, who was mentioned by a number of Senators, and indeed the other hostages, have no responsibility for the continuation of the conflict or for the worsening of the situation in the Gulf. I am sure Senator Bulbulia was not implying that any possible mistreatment of the hostages could be justified by what has happened.
Certainly not.
The Government continue to call for the release of Brian Keenan and do not consider that his detention can be justified. The Government will continue to do everything within their power to promote a solution within the UN framework. We will do so against the background of our consistent support for all efforts to bring about a just and peaceful solution. We will continue to avail of all opportunities open to us in bilateral contacts and in the United Nations to press for a speedy solution within the framework of the United Nations. With our partners in the Twelve we are convinced that this provides the basis for a comprehensive, durable and honourable settlement. The Twelve remain willing to offer any assistance they can to the Secretary General as he seeks to make progress in that area.
While continuing to press for a negotiated settlement within the United Nations framework the Government have also made clear on a number of occasions our particular concern about specific aspects of the conflict. We have repeatedly expressed our unreserved condemnation of the use of chemical weapons and the need for strict compliance with the principles of international humanitarian law prohibiting the use of such weapons in armed conflict. We have made known our concern at attacks on centres of population which further increase the suffering of the civilian populations of both parties. We have also condemned attacks on unarmed shipping in the Gulf and made clear our support for the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation. Our interventions are motivated by concern for the provision of international law as well as by purely humanitarian considerations. They are in no way inconsistent with our position of strict neutrality between the belligerents. Pending the termination of hostilities for which we devoutedly hope and for which we will continue to work assiduously, we will continue both nationally and in concert with our partners in the Community to make known our views on matters of concern which arise in the course of the conflict.
Amid the recriminations over what did or did not transpire last week-end, one fact alone stands out clearly: the already alarmingly high death toll attributable to this conflict has been increased still further. We must hope that from this tragedy the impetus to build a just and enduring peace will grow. A region rich in the resources of people and natural endowments deserves the opportunity to fulfil its undoubted potential. The people of Ireland profoundly hope that a settlement acceptable to all parties can be arrived at so that two nations, with each of which we have ties of friendship, can be restored to conditions of peace nd stability. The international community, through the United Nations, stands ready to play its part in the attainment of this objective. We earnestly hope that this opportunity will now be seized so that the cycle of death and destruction can at long last be reversed.
In reference to the motion tabled I hope I have made it abundantly clear that the Government have voiced their deep regret and will continue to pursue, as they have done, every avenue open to them to bring peace and stability to the region. I can, therefore, agree with the terms of the motion as tabled.
Mar fhocal scoir, be mhaith liom mo chomhbhrón agus comhbhrón an Rialtais a ghabháil leis na teaghlaigh a chaill a muintir san traigéide ar an Domhnach seo caite.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 12.30 a.m. on Wednesday 6 July 1988 until 10.30 a.m.