Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Oct 2001

Vol. 168 No. 6

Atrocities in the United States of America: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms O'Donnell)

I very much welcome the opportunity of reporting to the Seanad on the current situation following the terrorist atrocities committed in the United States on 11 September. We are now over one month removed from the terrible events of 11 September in the United States. The attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania left more than 5,000 people dead and missing.

The human impact of these attacks is not just felt in America. I note that it is now estimated that nationals of 80 countries were among the victims of the World Trade Centre attack. People of all nationalities and beliefs were cruelly murdered as they conducted their daily business. These included a now estimated eight Irish citizens.

Since the attacks of 11 September, the world has reacted in an unprecedented way. A global coalition has come together to co-operate in the fight against international terrorism. Action has taken place in the diplomatic, financial, judicial and police spheres and, in the past week or so, in the military sphere as well. As we are now aware, military action against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies is into its second week. The firm position of the Government is that military action should be undertaken only as a means of last resort, after all other means have failed. Unfortunately, that is now the situation, but we must be clear where the primary responsibility for this outcome rests. It rests with the Taliban regime and its attitude of disdain to the wishes of the international community.

Before and after the attacks of 11 September the Taliban regime was given every opportunity to respond to the demands of the Security Council. Regrettably, the Taliban regime has over the past two years defied, and continues to defy, the demands of the Security Council to hand over Osama bin Laden, who had been indicted for earlier terrorist attacks on American targets and was on record as urging further attacks on the US, and to dismantle the terrorist camps in the area under its control. The Taliban maintained this position in the face of sanctions imposed by the Security Council.

Even the terrible events of 11 September in the US, with their horrendous casualties, could not convince the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden and his associates. This situation was exacerbated by bin Laden's ongoing incitement in television interviews of further attacks on the US and others. Given the history of this man and his organisation, we must take seriously those threats.

At present we are seeing the apparently deliberate distribution of the anthrax disease in the US. There are reports of suspected cases in many other countries and I note from the statement of Tom Ridge, the new Director of Homeland Security in the US, that the authorities there are acting on the presumption that there may be a connection to Osama bin Laden and his network.

The US and its allies, in carrying out targeted attacks on the military assets of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and the Taliban regime, are acting within the inherent right to individual and collective self-defence as recognised under Article 51 of the UN Charter. They are also acting in pursuit of Security Council Resolution 1368, which calls on all states to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the terrorist attacks of 11 September and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of those acts will be held accountable.

It is in this context that the Government has accorded its support for the military action now under way, as long as such action is targeted and proportionate and that every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of those carrying out the military response and despite the claims for the accuracy of modern weapons, inevitably, civilian casualties have regrettably been inflicted. There was an admission yesterday by the US military authorities of the bombing, by mistake, of a Red Cross storage depot. They have apologised for the error and such incidents must be sincerely regretted. No effort must be spared in seeking to prevent the occurrence of civilian casualties. As has been said by everybody, the ordinary people of Afghanistan are not responsible for the atroci ties of 11 September. They have also been the victims of prolonged violence and the extremism of the Taliban regime over a number of years.

Ireland has been to the forefront in keeping Afghanistan on the agenda of the international community. Since the start of the year we have been very outspoken at the Security Council on the need to focus on the humanitarian concerns of the Afghan people. We have supported and will continue to support the idea of the Security Council taking a comprehensive approach to Afghanistan, which includes addressing the political, economic, humanitarian and human rights situations. The Security Council held consultations on Afghanistan on 9 and 16 October.

In this regard, the appointment by the Secretary General of a special representative for Afghanistan, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, is especially welcome. He has a long and distinguished career in the service of the UN and has overall responsibility for the humanitarian and political efforts in Afghanistan. He will manage peacekeeping initiatives with a view to facilitating the establishment of a fully representative, multi-ethnic and broad based Government in Afghanistan and will initiate preparations for the development of plans for the rehabilitation of the country. At Ireland's request, Ambassador Brahimi briefed the Security Council yesterday on his contacts to date.

There have been reported offers through the media that the Taliban regime might hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country. We would be very pleased if the regime was to now, belatedly, comply with the terms of UN Resolution 1333 of 2000. It requires the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted or to an appropriate authority in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice. However, it is difficult to conclude from the reported comments of Taliban officials that such offers can be taken seriously.

There have been concerns, as reported by the media in recent days, about the likelihood of an imminent attack on states other that Afghanistan. We are aware of no evidence which demonstrates that other states were knowingly involved in harbouring those who planned or executed the 11 September atrocities. There has, moreover, been no mention in our contacts with the US or its military allies of other possible targets for military action being under active consideration.

The multi-faceted campaign against international terrorism is being pursued across a wide front. Ireland is particularly involved through the United Nations and the European Union. We are also active at a national level. Ireland is particularly conscious of its position of responsibility during its presidency of the UN Security Council. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, spoke to UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on the evening the US-led response commenced. The following day and at our initiative the Security Council was briefed by the US and British representatives on the action initiated by their armed forces.

It is important that the role of the Council is acknowledged. The Security Council recognises the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter and agreed that the USA and UK action was being taken in exercise of that right. Under the UN Charter measures taken by members in the exercise of the right to self-defence must be reported immediately to the Security Council. This was done immediately after the commencement of attacks on Sunday 7 October, by letters to the President of the Security Council from both the USA and UK. They made it clear that the military action is directed at terrorists and those who harbour them, not at the civilian population. By its very nature, the action taken by the US and UK armed forces is in stark contrast with the attacks by the terrorists on 11 September, who set out to deliberately attack the civilian population in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The UN Secretary General when commenting about the military operations, recognised the right to self-defence as contained in the UN Charter.

A key priority of our presidency of the Security Council is to ensure that resolutions on terrorism are implemented, in particular the follow-up to Security Council Resolution 1373 which was agreed on 28 September. A Security Council counter-terrorism committee has been set up. This committee was established on foot of Resolution 1373 and will monitor how states comply with the provisions of the resolution in areas such as the financing of terrorism and denying safe haven to terrorists. The crucially important International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999, was signed in New York on 15 October by the Irish Permanent Representative to the UN. It requires states parties to make it an offence in their national law for any person, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, to provide or collect funds with the intention or in the knowledge that they are to be used to carry out terrorist acts. Ireland will participate fully in the efforts of the international community to choke off the funds of terrorists. The preparation of primary legislation to enable ratification of the convention is being given the highest priority by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The role of the UN is critical to the ultimate successful resolution of the situation in Afghanistan. That country cannot be allowed to remain a failed state where continuing internal conflicts breed illegal activities and provide a safe haven for terrorists. Our long-term objective is to support a UN-led peace process towards a truly representative government for the Afghan people. As President of the Security Council, Ireland is closely involved with the multi-track consultations on the situation. It is not appropriate to create prescriptions for post-Taliban Afghanistan. Any arrangements must be seen to come from the Afghan people themselves. We are in favour of a stable, fully representative government with the security of sustained, and well co-ordinated development and rehabilitation assistance from the international community. Ireland stands ready to assist in whatever way it can in achieving this.

The EU has adopted a key role in supporting the fight against terrorism. The special European Council which met on 21 September gave a clear political impetus to confronting the challenge of terrorism. It was agreed to pursue a wide range of judicial co-operation measures. These include Commission proposals for council framework decisions on combating terrorism and on the introduction of a European arrest warrant. The meeting of EU foreign ministers on 8 October expressed its whole-hearted support for the action being taken in self defence and in conformity with the UN Charter and UN Security Council Resolution 1368. The Council also stressed that the carefully targeted response launched on 7 October was not an attack on Islam nor the people of Afghanistan, whom the EU is determined to support and sustain.

Urgent work is under way in various Council formations to evolve concrete measures for consideration and adoption next December. A special general affairs council meeting is being held in Luxembourg today to review progress in advance of the informal European Council next Friday. Together with our partners in the EU, Ireland is in favour of a UN-led process in the vital next stages for Afghanistan. As with EU relations with third countries, in order to support counter terrorism and international law, we need to provide assistance and support to a category of countries in need, as recognised by Security Resolution 1373. Afghanistan's neighbours stand to benefit. Reconstruction in Afghanistan would stimulate Pakistan's economy and reinforce economic relations between the two countries. The Government has established internal arrangements to co-ordinate the follow through on our national responsibilities under the UN and EU initiatives. The newly created Office of Emergency Planning will assist in better co-ordinating our response to any threats which we may yet face.

It cannot be denied or ignored that the continued failure to achieve a just and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East is one of the major factors giving rise to acts of terrorism in that region and in the wider world. Any approach to the problem of global terrorism must take account of the grievances of the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation while recognising the right of the Israeli people to live in peace and security. Ireland has long supported the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their own state. The best prospect of achieving a viable, independent state, which exists in fact and not only in name is, as the Palestinians themselves recognise, through the Middle East peace process.

President Arafat visited Dublin two days ago and briefed the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the current situation in the region. He asked Ireland to use all its influence in the international community to aid the process. No one can be under any illusion that the parties to this conflict will resolve matters without international support and occasional pressure. The murder today of the Israeli tourism minister, Rehavam Ze'evi, illustrates the difficulties faced in the peace process. Further assassinations are absolutely counterproductive to progress and are clearly the work of enemies of the peace process.

There has clearly been a renewal of international commitment to the region in the past few weeks, which I welcome. Ireland will contribute to peace efforts as fully as is possible through the European Union, the United Nations and other international fora, as well as through ongoing bilateral contacts with the parties. In terms of practical assistance to the Palestinian people, Ireland Aid has had a development programme for the Palestinian territories for some years. Expenditure this year is budgeted at approximately IR£1.2 million in addition to the IR£1.24 million provided in emergency relief since the start of the Intifada.

I give particular attention to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. As Minister of State with particular responsibility in this area, I am acutely aware of the enormous challenge the world community now faces in protecting the vulnerable people of Afghanistan. Their lives remain at risk, not only from ongoing conflict but also from the climatic hardships of drought and winter. In coming to terms with the appalling attacks perpetrated against the people of the United States, the world has also become more aware than ever of how protracted the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan has been. It has spanned two decades of conflict and has been worsened in recent years by successive outbreaks of severe drought. To make things even worse for the Afghan people, they now face the onset of the harsh winter.

Earlier this year the UN conducted a number of nutritional surveys of displaced persons at various locations within Afghanistan. Around the same time Concern conducted a nutritional survey among the settled community in northern Afghanistan. All of these surveys found that people, whether still living in their homes or displaced from them, were running out of resources with which to cope with the onset of winter in mid-November. Having used their remaining food supplies and sold their livestock and seed stocks to survive during the period of summer drought, hundreds of thousands of people are now facing into a bleak winter for which they are ill-equipped. In a country whose people rely predominantly on agricultural activity to survive, the collapse of crop yields and of the small but important income they generate is catastrophic.

Ireland and other international donors have been working for some time now to help meet the demands of the Afghan humanitarian crisis. Last October, the Government gave it priority as a then "forgotten emergency". Days before the 11 September atrocities, the World Food Programme issued a $152 million humanitarian appeal. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that between 3 and 5 million people will suffer as of now if we fail to get aid to them before winter, which comes before the middle of November.

Taking account of these underlying realities, the Government has focused on four main objectives in its efforts to help resolve the humanitarian crisis, namely, getting aid into Afghanistan to the hundreds of thousands at risk within its borders, including by securing or negotiating safe delivery routes through which this can reliably take place; beating the winter deadline – we have only until mid-November to get aid through before the harsh winter sets in or millions of Afghans will die; protecting emergency aid stocks, humanitarian workers and the vulnerable population – both in Afghanistan and along its borders – and we wish to see all humanitarian activity protected in accordance with international humanitarian law; and re-opening borders so that aid agencies and their staff can respond effectively and, of equal importance, so refugees can get to safety. UNHCR is prepared for an initial 1.5 million refugees; we must have the flexibility to deal with any increase in this estimate.

The Government's overriding priority in humanitarian terms is to get aid to the hundreds of thousands at risk within Afghanistan as soon as possible. We are making every appropriate effort, including discussion at a special General Affairs Council in Luxembourg, to give the humanitarian emergency the urgent attention it requires. It is a core component of Ireland's working programme in its Presidency of the UN Security Council. The Minister for Foreign Affairs raised it in the course of his various meetings in Washington and New York in September. It is being actively pursued in our bilateral meetings with the key UN and regional representatives. Our permanent representation to the UN in Geneva is similarly engaged on a daily basis with the relevant UN, Red Cross and other international humanitarian agencies.

At a meeting of the Security Council yesterday, Ireland highlighted the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and commended the work of humanitarian organisations in the region. We urged Pakistan and Iran to reopen their borders to enable cross-border deliveries of aid and to facilitate preparations for an influx of refugees. We stressed the need for the international community to provide host countries with financial support in this regard. We also emphasised the need for UN involvement, with inputs from the EU and other relevant organisations and in consultation with regional partners in the process of achieving new governmental arrangements for Afghanistan. UN involvement would also be needed in the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan and in long-term humanitarian assistance.

I was able to press home the importance of all these humanitarian priorities when I attended a specially convened meeting of EU Development Ministers, which was held in Brussels last week on 10 October. At the meeting, which dealt solely with Afghanistan, we had an opportunity to discuss how the EU can effectively respond to the needs in that country and how long-term development assistance can contribute to the fight against terrorism in a broader context.

Following my recent announcement of an additional £2.8 million in emergency assistance, Ireland has provided a total of £4.03 million to the people of Afghanistan this year. Similarly, the EU has committed over €300 million. This expenditure represents both the gravity of the current crisis and the enormous humanitarian commitment that Ireland and other EU member states are making to Afghanistan. As I said, we now have a clear and pressing challenge – to deliver that aid to those who need it most before winter sets in. Ireland Aid is continuing to work closely with our NGOs and other partners to achieve this.

Before 11 September, it was estimated that above 700,000 people were displaced within the territory of Afghanistan. Since then, more people have been uprooted from their homes and the current figure for internally displaced people is somewhere above 1 million. The anticipated mass exodus of refugees has not materialised to date. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that about 1,000 refugees have fled Afghanistan each day since the appalling events of 11 September. To date, therefore, most of those who have fled their homes have chosen to remain in the countryside in Afghanistan. However, this has created a further layer of problems for the people concerned, which must also be addressed by the international community.

We cannot afford to become complacent about the low level of refugee movement to date. If the current refugee problem escalates significantly over the next few weeks the borders may have to be reopened. The UNHCR is catering for the possible influx of 1.5 million refugees across the border of Afghanistan and Iran. This is a very real possibility and we must lay plans now to deal with it. We will continue our efforts to ensure that the international donor community and countries hosting refugees can work together to respond effectively to the evolving refugee situation.

We also support the ongoing work of Irish NGOs such as Trócaire, Christian Aid, GOAL and Concern in trying to improve circumstances for refugees and mitigate the impact of increasing population on local host communities. In addition, we are supporting the provision of basic water, sanitation and nutritional needs for those stranded within the country. Our support for humanitarian efforts, both within Afghanistan and along its borders, is intended to provide balance in the focus of Ireland's humanitarian response.

The humanitarian problems of Afghanistan are an enormously challenging burden for the world to carry. As a caring international community, we have to find effective means of ensuring delivery of vital humanitarian assistance to those who need it most when they need it. We have to balance the enormous international aid commitment, which is somewhere in excess of $700 million, with an adequate and co-ordinated means of reaching its intended beneficiaries. While aware of the difficulties in ensuring the effective delivery of aid to all parts of Afghanistan, I hope that these can be resolved by concerted effort between the various parties concerned.

There are a number of aid delivery routes being operated by the World Food Programme and other international agencies. In addition, Irish and other NGOs are making their own efforts to source and deliver aid into Northern Afghanistan via neighbouring countries such as Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. While these aid delivery routes are effective in their own right, they remain vulnerable to interruption and have, in some cases, been cut off at different times. It is vital to ensure secure and unhindered access arrangements for food convoys over the coming weeks.

At present, it is estimated that about 1,000 metric tonnes of aid are being delivered in Afghanistan each day by the UN agencies. This delivery rate has to be increased considerably if a humanitarian disaster is to be averted. The scale of this potential disaster is more than five times that of the refugee crisis that followed the Rwandan genocide of 1994. It is incumbent upon us all to co-operate fully in this enormous humanitarian endeavour so we can succeed in dealing with the first major humanitarian crisis of the twenty first century.

I thank Senators for their attention.

Mr. Connor

I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I have recently taken over as the spokesperson on Foreign Affairs on this side of the House and it is my first occasion to speak in this capacity with the Minister of State present.

The terrorist outrages in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 11 September were rightly condemned by the whole world community. The Government, the Members of the Houses and the people of Ireland simultaneously expressed shock and grief over the death of so many innocent people who died in such a horrible way. We offered our condolences to the bereaved families who are all over the world. Citizens of 80 countries died in the outrage in New York on 11 September. We offered solidarity to the American people and we joined the world community in offering our co-operation to bring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the terrorist attacks to justice.

If the Taliban government had complied with the relevant UN Security Council resolution, to which the Minister of State has referred, it would have saved the Afghan people from a huge amount of damage. Much of what remains of their economy would have been saved because a substantial amount of natural assets are being destroyed in the current military campaign by the United States. We grieve for the innocent victims in Afghanistan, who are suffering terribly.

Afghanistan has had a terrible history. Few people know that in the 19th century there were two terrible wars called the Afghan wars fought by the British and the Russians. Britain defended her interests in India while Russia wanted to expand her interests further into Afghanistan, which was one of the neighbouring countries of Tsarist Russia. Tens of thousands of people died in those conflicts. Afghanistan has also had an appalling history in the 20th century. We all remember what happened in 1979 when the then Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and put a Communist Government in place in Kabul. That led to years of civil war in which the great powers took sides because this was the era of the Cold War. The United States of America supported and armed the Taliban and others opposed to the Russian-sponsored regime in Kabul. No principle was involved other than they were the "enemy of my enemy". Principles went out the window and regimes were supported simply for that reason.

It is important to highlight this because there is a lesson to be learned from what happened, namely, that it is like sowing the dragon's teeth which eventually grow into armed monsters which attack the very people who sowed the teeth. I sincerely hope that great powers in the world who meddle in civil wars in other countries because they see their interests being challenged or they believe they must defend their interests in these countries learn the lesson that what was done in such an unprincipled way in the 1970s and 1980s in Afghanistan should not be repeated.

There is no point in this war on terrorism, and the American President said it will be a long war, achieving the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan if it does not deal with the root causes of terrorism. So much of it has its root causes in the denial of justice in the Middle East. What is happening and has happened in the past nine months between Israel and Palestine is terrible. While no one is blameless, I find the greater weight of blame lies with Israel. The perception abroad in the world, especially in the Muslim and Arab worlds, is that the United States is too partial to the state of Israel. That often leads to the arrogance and inflexibility of the Israeli Government. I am glad the Bush Presidency, unlike the Clinton Administration which showed little interest in a settlement in the Middle East, is showing a greater degree of interest. That is reflected in the recent actions, statements and visits of Mr. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister. While we might feel we do not have great influence, nevertheless, because Members of the House are elected politicians, we should, when expressing our views, state our wish that much of what is done today and the good intentions which appear to be on the agenda had happened four or five years ago.

The Minister was right not to speculate what might happen in the aftermath of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but I have more freedom and I will make some suggestions about what should happen. The international community must work towards establishing a multi-ethnic Government in that country which draws support from the many ethnic groups there, and there are many. They need to be represented in the governance of the country when a settlement is ultimately put in place.

In tandem with the political settlement of putting in place a Government which has the consent of the people and to which people of the many ethnic groups in the country can give their allegiance – the only factor which appears to unite them is the Islamic religion and that they are all Muslims – the international community must also put in place a rehabilitation programme for the destroyed economy of Afghanistan. It should put in place a programme for the return of the millions of Afghanis who are refugees in Iran and Pakistan, the hundreds of thousands who are no doubt in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and other neighbouring states and those who, possibly, are in China.

Millions of mines have been laid all over Afghanistan. It is said to be the most mine-laden country in the world. That is a huge problem which must be tackled if the people are to be resettled in their homesteads or the areas where they lived. The Minister made the point that, by and large, it is a rural society with a large proportion of the population relying totally on farming for its economic survival, and that farming involves patterns which have not changed for hundreds of years. While the economy needs to be brought to some modern standard, that will not happen in a quick time scale after the conflict has concluded. Most who will be returned – I presume there will be a return programme supported by the international community – will have to be returned to where they lived in the countryside. Then the problem of the millions of mines must be addressed. The infrastructure of the country, roadways, railways etc. has been destroyed and there is continuing destruction of those assets as a result of the military action.

We should state to our friend, the United States of America, that this military action should be as short as possible and should be targeted at the areas that need to be dealt with – by that we mean the Taliban military installations, arms dumps, other means by which the Taliban regime has conducted its reign of terror on its own people and, if they can be found, those camps where terrorists are trained and huge amounts of arms are no doubt stored.

Bombing and warfare has changed fundamentally from 50 years ago or during the Second World War. We live in the era of the smart bomb which can be targeted on a particular location and the amount of explosives used regulated. Nevertheless, there are still terrible mistakes, such as the stray bomb which hit the International Red Cross or Red Crescent depot in Kabul yesterday. The United States has apologised for that but it is a pity that apology had to be issued. Tens of thousands of tonnes of emergency humanitarian aid, that is, food aid, in that depot was severely damaged by the explosion and the fire which followed.

It is important that the House acknowledges the restraint and wise governance under enormous pressure which President Musharraf has shown. Normally we would not praise him in this House or in this country. He is a military leader who came to power more than two years ago in a military coup. There was political chaos, or something close to it, in Pakistan and power was seized by the army. I commend his conciliatory approach towards India. A few months ago he went to India, which is unusual for a leader of Pakistan, and he did not wear his military uniform as normal but went in civilian ‘mufti'. He improved relations with India despite the huge tension which exists over Kashmir. He has shown enormous courage in his own country where there are so many extremists and where the Islamic belief is so deeply held in a totally unreformed way. The Reformation was the greatest thing to happen to Christianity whereas the greatest loss to Islam is that it did not have an upheaval like the Reformation.

We must acknowledge the huge difficulty a man like General Musharraf has in a country with such traditional religious beliefs. It is officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He has shown restraint and wonderful courage in joining the international coalition against terrorism. He has pointed out that his Government does not support people who pervert religion in the service of evil. That is what is happening. One of the world's great religions is being perverted in the service of evil by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda clique. General Musharraf has called upon the Taliban regime – his was one of the only three governments in the world to recognise that regime – to hand over Osama bin Laden to the international community to be tried for his many crimes. It is important we acknowledge that courage.

The attitude taken by Iran was entirely different. Its animosities towards the United States took precedence in relation to the war against terrorism despite the fact that Iran has reason to curse the Taliban. The Taliban regime would be totally opposed to the regime in Iran and would engage in terrorism there.

There is not a lot more to add to this debate. We have expressed our absolute horror at what happened on 11 September. A number of Irish perished in the twin towers and as yet only 400 or 500 bodies have been recovered from the ruins. Thousands of people remain grieving for relatives and loved ones who lost their lives. It has had a huge effect on world opinion towards terrorism and ambivalence, often found here, towards people who take the law into their own hands. There is often a sneaking regard for terrorism but this has changed people's opinion fundamentally. I was delighted to see the restraint during the ceremonies for the reburial of the people executed during the War of Independence. The sermon by Cardinal Cahal Daly was given in a way it might not have been some years ago. Some good can come from appalling evil and attitudes can be changed.

I am delighted the House has engaged itself again on this issue. It is a good idea that we are debating the issue after having some time to reflect. Unfortunately military action has been necessary and some things will be difficult to accept – the bombing of the Red Cross depot is difficult to accept. Similarly, the hitting of the Chinese embassy in the bombing in Belgrade should not have happened.

We have an opportunity now and we hope that Afghanistan will emerge from this unlike what happened when the Russians left Najibullah on the throne in Kabul in the early 1980s. He was quickly overthrown, the world community's interest in Afghanistan quickly faded away and they were left to their own devices at a terrible cost. It was the chaos and political vacuum that followed after the Russians were thrown out, after the Najibullah regime was overthrown, after the Mujahidin regime had come to power, followed by the Taliban, that created the situation of lawlessness which welcomed and sheltered Osama bin Laden and allowed him operate and train the people who carried out the terrible deeds in Nairobi, New York and elsewhere.

The lesson we must learn is that we must never allow that happen again. The chaos in Afghanistan was created by outside interference. That was what happened in the 19th century when the British and Russians became involved in wars. It was outside interference promoting its own interest because Afghanistan happened to lie between two great powers. When Russia invaded it became the business of the United States to oppose it. We have learned a terrible lesson. I hope some good will come of it and that we will have a reconstructed Afghanistan supported by the international community.

Mr. Lydon

The Government response to this was swift and appropriate. It was a clear response reiterating that we have always been opposed to acts of terrorism from whatever corner they emanate. The Government expects a military response to be "proportionate, measured and focused on the pursuit of justice". The responses of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at various fora such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Dáil and the media have been intelligent, accurate and compassionate. I am grateful at these harrowing times that Deputy Cowen is our Minister for Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the United Nations Security Council. No previous Minister in this office would have represented us better.

By any measure, the events of 11 September were horrific and without justification. The people who perpetrated these acts, which resulted in the loss of so many innocent lives, did so with no regard to who died. They did not discriminate on the basis of age, sex, nationality, or even religion, as many of their co-religionists were murdered. Their only motivation was to "hurt" America. If thousands of innocents died, their attitude appears to have been "So what?" I do not believe those who hijacked the planes realised the extent of the carnage that was to follow, but we will never know.

I read and heard in the media some people say that America had it coming, that its foreign policy is bad, or that it interferes across the world. That may be true or not, but nothing – I repeat, nothing – justifies the loss of innocent life in this way or on this scale. No warning was given, no declaration of war made and no indication that it might happen. Thousands of innocent people arose on that fateful day, went to work and died horribly, being burnt or crushed, while others saw no way out but to leap from a great height to certain death. This wanton act of terrorism cannot be justified and no excuse can make it right.

The scale was a defining feature of this act. One wonders how anyone could bring himself to do it, no matter what welcome he imagined awaited him in paradise. I mourn the deaths of the terrorists also. They were young men dedicated to some cause, misguided and probably manipulated by someone like Osama bin Laden. Their own lives were wasted. Should we be amazed at the capacity of people to visit such horror on others? No.

Was the loss of innocent life in Birmingham and London different from what happened in New York? Of course, there was a warning and that made it all right. Was the loss of life in Omagh any different? There was a warning there too. What of the Dublin and Monaghan bombs for which there was no warning? I repeat that bombing innocent people in the pursuit of a cause which one believes to be just cannot be justified.

None of us can fail to be moved by events. I was struck by the words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs after his visit to Manhattan,

It was for me a traumatic, emotional and deeply saddening experience. Nothing could have prepared me for the sheer immensity of the destruction of property, but even more shocking was that on this spot on that terrible Tuesday morning thousands of innocent people going about their daily business had been slaughtered in the name of an evil hatred.

We share in America's grief because it was home to many of our people. When they had no home here, it gave them a new one. There are 42 million people of Irish extraction living there. In his recent speech, the Taoiseach stated:

We feel a special kinship with America and New York, with firefighters and police, office workers and corporate leaders, many of whose parents, grandparents and ancestors came from this land and made the United States the largest nation on Earth. The names on the casualty list of this terrorist attack include Boyle, Crowley, Collins, O'Hagan, MacSweeny and O'Neill, our names, the names of our families, our friends and the names of our nation. They include young people only very recently arrived from Ireland. Now they are gone. Our hearts and our prayers go out to their families.

We must also support America because of the Second World War, and I am just old enough to remember it. If America had not entered the war, we might now be ruled by Nazis. We support the USA in its time of need and grief because, as I have stated many times before in the House, when the chips are down, we call on Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam has never been found wanting.

We must pause at this time and look beyond these events to ask what motivates people to take such extreme action, no matter how misguided. We must ask if they tried legitimate ways to fight for what they believe and found that their countries' systems and structures failed them. These are legitimate, important questions that must be asked, and there is no better time than now.

For the first time we perceive global terrorism, a shadowy, nebulous culture with tentacles in every country. If it is not destroyed we will continue to live in a less secure world and they will strike again and we will not know where, when or how. It is imperative that we are not complacent because it is when we least expect it that an attack may occur. The anthrax attacks around the world are an example of how a few people with little resources can cause havoc. They can terrorise people and cause economic damage. The economic considerations are important. Witness the recent fall in international travel.

We have no option but to respond and that response should be twofold. We must attack the terrorists and also help establish democracies. We must not support dictatorships as we have in the past in places such as Chile, Indonesia or the Central African Republic. We ought not to support immoral or illegal regimes simply because their leaders are pro-business, pro-West or pro-American. We must address injustice around the world. The Minister stated, "We must redouble our efforts to put an end to the many conflicts and injustices which, while they can never ever justify the horrors of 11 September, are exploited by the terrorists to garner support for their warped philosophies."

Millions of people live in poverty and environments where disease and famine are rampant. We should deal fairly with developing countries, especially in the dealings of the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and we should not cripple them with debt.

We ought also to address Arab grievances, particularly over the Holy Land. I witnessed the abuse of Palestinians when I was there, and as Deputy O'Donnell, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, stated, "Any approach to the problem of global terrorism must take account of the grievances of the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation, while recognising the right of the Israeli people to live in peace and security." The Palestinians have lived there for centuries. It is similar to my knocking on someone's door claiming to be one of the Tuatha de Danaan who were here 3,000 years ago and demanding his land. We must help establish a rapprochement between the two sides, so that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace.

Let us be honest. War was declared on Afghanistan and it is said that truth is the first casualty of war. The second is probably innocent civilians. Many of them will be killed in Afghanistan, people who know little of world politics or the attack on the twin towers because of the Taliban's media black-out. They are real people. Having long hair and beards or wearing strange clothes does not mean that they do not bleed when cut, cry when they lose a loved one, or laugh when something funny happens, nor does it mean that they are not intelligent and cannot appreciate that democracy, with its guarantees of freedom of expression, may be a better form of government than the one to which they have been subjected.

It is said that the King of Afghanistan may be reinstated. It has also been said that a benign monarchy is the best form of government. Maybe it is, but whatever about the old king, who knows what the new prince may begin? I will stick with democracy. Let us demonstrate that democracy means freedom, freedom to worship as people see fit, to work, trade, travel, speak out and have better lives. Then and only then will the terrorists be defeated because without a cause they will have lost their reason to exist.

The Minister outlined the Government position, which is to get aid to Afghanistan. Why did we not get it there before this started? The Minister mentioned beating the winter deadline, preparing emergency aid stocks, providing humanitarian workers and re-opening borders, which are all laudable objectives, but they have not been achieved in time. The Americans armed the Taliban. They trained bin Laden before he turned against them. In future, we need to look at what we are doing in this regard. Pouring in aid for the sake of it will not do much good. We need to help developing countries like Afghanistan. This does not just mean giving the people food. We must give them schools, hospitals and industries, help them establish a democratic form of government and then leave them to their own devices to run their country as they see fit.

Terrorism must be defeated, and Members know that. However, I am concerned about the war that may ensue in Afghanistan. Many innocent people will be killed, people who would rather live under a different system. It should be remembered that Afghanistan was not always under the rule of the Taliban or unjust people. Like many other places, where injustice creeps in terrorism takes over. There are many examples of this throughout the world and they do not need explicit mention. So far, we seem to be headed in the right direction. I am pleased the Government asked for moderation in the military response, although that may not happen. Perhaps, we can do something when this is over to help Afghanistan live in a democratic fashion.

Mr. Norris

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this subject because I was abroad when these events occurred. Although I attempted to get back from the Middle East, it was not possible and I did not have the opportunity to say what I wanted on this matter. My contribution will be a short one as I am supposed to be at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and I had also arranged to share time with one of my colleagues.

One of the positive aspects of this tragedy has been the intelligent, analytical approach from this House. Members have taken a balanced view, which is important. Although we support the democratic values of the west, we should not be uncritical of the circumstances that led to this situation. The attacks were horrific. It was appalling to watch people tumble from the 101st floor of that building. One cannot imagine the feelings of those trapped in the inferno. It is still incredible to consider that the World Trade Center is gone. This morning I received the latest issue of the National Geographic magazine. As usual, it contains a wonderful series of photographic essays. One of the recent photographs shows the island of Manhattan with the World Trade Center's twin towers still intact. That is a current magazine but the towers have gone.

I was listening to a car radio when I first heard of the attacks. At first, it seemed that a light plane had flown into the tower. I thought it was just an accident or that some idiot was clowning around, as happens frequently in New York. Not long ago, somebody tried to land in a parachute on the Statue of Liberty. Then an airliner flew into the tower, the building caught fire and it collapsed. It was almost unreal. Then the Pentagon was hit. At that stage, I began to realise that something very sinister was behind this.

These were carefully selected targets and we would be very foolish to underestimate the acute intelligence of Mr. bin Laden, if he is the person behind the attacks, or, if he is not, whoever is behind them. It is clear that the planning of this outrage was initiated before Ariel Sharon went on his walkabout around the Temple Mount, which I strongly condemn. That cannot be seen as the principal incendiary factor. The attackers were able to get inside the security network of American domestic airlines, which have been rightly criticised for their laxity in this area. They landed the planes at precisely those points in the building where it would lead to collapse. The ultimate cynicism came with the manipulation of the stock market by the terrorists in advance of the attacks so that they could not only create carnage but reap an unholy reward from it. That is extraordinarily cynical although it has not yet been clearly proved. If it is true, it shows a depth of human cynicism but also a remarkable logistical intelligence that should not be underestimated.

It is clear that both sides are attempting to manipulate information and to create facts. By hitting back savagely and inflicting large-scale civilian casualties, the west would be playing into the hands of bin Laden. I regret the United States did not find it possible to sign up to the International Criminal Court in advance of the attacks. If it had done so, the court would be precisely the arena in which somebody like bin Laden should be tried. It is more satisfactory to have an impartial judicial process deciding on the guilt or innocence of a suspect, and whatever one's suspicions, bin Laden is as yet innocent. Nothing has been proved against him. The excuse for not providing evidence of his guilt is that the information is sensitive in security terms. It may be, but to get a conviction this evidence must be produced. We must be suspicious because of the news management by both sides.

Looking back to the situation in the former Yugoslavia, we were rightly horrified by tales of mass rape, of rape being used as a political instrument and of camps being set up by the Serbs, who committed terrible atrocities, for this purpose. It was not true. These tales have been exposed as false. One of the young women who claimed in a tearful interview to have been raped was the daughter of a diplomatic family in New York and she was not near the place at the time. That is black propaganda. Its existence concerns me in terms of the news that has come out today that the only commercial satellite taking high-definition photographs which could clearly show the effect of the war on the ground – the pictures are clear enough to show bodies – has been bought by the Pentagon. That did not happen the day the war was declared. It happened the day after the UN mine-clearing mission was hit. That suggests that this action is not a strategic necessity for the Americans but part of news management so that we will not see civilian casualties. That is very worrying and I say that not as an anti-American but as one in favour of truth, honesty and clarity.

I listened to American people interviewed on radio over recent weeks. Some were remarkable in the clarity of their understanding of the situation. They showed little of the spirit of vengeance. However, there were also some totally closed minds. I remember a male Republican supporter especially. He belly-ached about what he called the anti-American attitudes of the pseudo-intellectuals of The Irish Times. However, he did not give a single instance of their lack of understanding or of the falsity of their statements. He simply labelled them pseudo-intellectuals, grouped them with The Irish Times and then dismissed them. That is not answering an argument.

Regrettably and tragically, there is an argument that says that the West, or America and New York, had it coming to them. How could they? What had the civilians in those office buildings done to deserve the awful fate they met? There is no question in my mind that American foreign policy over the last 20 or 30 years has been a contributing factor. President Bush said that America was attacked because it was the greatest beacon of democracy and hope in the world but I do not completely assent to this.

Let us look back at America's record and its foreign policy and take a few instances from it. The subversion by military coup in Chile in which the CIA were heavily involved because of the commercial interests of the United States got rid of the democratically elected government of President Allende. In Nicaragua, a democracy which was conducting the most important political experiment ever to find a third way between capitalism and communism was destroyed by external intervention heavily sponsored both militarily and financially by the United States of America.

Then there was the Vietnam war and the involvement of Henry Kissinger, somebody who in my opinion is waiting for another arrest warrant. Not only did they intervene in the most savage way but they also carpet bombed Kampuchea which was not even involved because they thought there were supply routes going through it. Is that not terrorism?

If there is one constructive contribution I can make to this debate it would be to suggest that it is important for us to look at the definition of terrorism in legal terms. I am not surprised but I am sorry that the international community is experiencing such difficulty and I know the reason is that virtually every single government is afraid that if they produce a realistic definition of terrorism then some of their own agencies may be implicated. Nevertheless I suggest the following as a definition of terrorism. Terrorism exists when an individual or state employs violence, especially against civilian targets, with the intention of influencing public policy by the inspiration of terror. That seems to me to be quite clearcut and logical but I imagine that there might be difficulties in these areas because, as Senator Lydon suggests, we had the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and where was the finger that pulled that trigger, to mix a metaphor?

When looking at the issue of human rights one can be cynical. Several Senators asked why we did not intervene positively in Afghanistan before. The west had intervened before. The British attempted it in the 19th century, then the Rus sians and Americans fought out a proxy war there. They were not invited in, it just happened to suit the Soviet Union and the United States of America to fight in somebody else's backyard. They trained the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and walked away from it leaving the unfortunate population of Afghanistan to be ruled by tyrants and despots.

Senator Lydon asked, in an echo of Shakespeare, if they have funny clothes and long beards, do they not bleed? Like Shylock, do they not laugh? The answer to that is that they do not. Astonishingly that is one of the criminal offences that the police for the suppression of vice and the promotion of virtue look out for. To laugh is an offence. Why did we not go there when, in recent years, we heard of the appalling treatment of women, if we were interested in human rights? Women were dragged out of cancer wards because of the fear that a male doctor might get a glimpse of a naked ankle. Why did we not protest about that? We have known there has been a 90% crop failure in Afghanistan for the last three years. Silence. Suddenly we want to do something. Believe you me, when the history is written in 15, 20 or 30 years time one will find a little whiff of oil in the background. Very close to Afghanistan are the largest oil reserves in the world and it will probably have to be piped through there because it is the shortest and safest route. That is one of the reasons we are intervening at this point. We need to clean up our act and look at the real humanitarian issues.

After all this hell that we created in Afghanistan the people fled. Of course they did, they are human beings as Senator Lydon said. What happened when they tried to escape? They got onto wretched little boats in the Indian Ocean and desperately tried to make for Australia where they thought there might be western values of liberty, freedom and dignity. The Australian Government to their unending shame sought to deny them the right to land and a proper hearing in their court.

I do not exonerate Ireland either. Look at what we have been doing. We have tacitly gone along with all kinds of GATT agreements and international economic treaties which substantially disadvantage the southern hemisphere and the poorest people on our planet. To give one example of this, I read with interest about a year ago of a man in the west of Ireland who built a super trawler which cost a couple of million pounds which is not allowed to fish in European Union waters because of the damage it would do. It hoovers everything up indiscriminately and anything it does not want is just thrown over the side. Where is it fishing? Off the coast of west Africa where local tribes people have been put off their traditional fishing areas. They have been bankrupted and turned into refugees by the operation of trawlers like this and when they come here we slam the door in their faces on the grounds that they are economic migrants.

This situation of terror which I deplore will never be resolved until we achieve a more just world and we are prepared to share the good things in this life a little bit more equally and live up to the credo that we so often proclaim of Christianity and morality and justice for all. If we had more justice there would be less terrorism.

I do not believe that the war on terrorism will get anywhere. We had a war on want but there is still plenty of want around. We had a war on drugs but drug taking has increased. We had a war on crime and nobody is too happy with that. Certainly the one thing that these grand wars have in common is that they never achieve their targeted result. By going in there, particularly in view of the lack of information, one is going to exacerbate the situation.

Look at what is happening in Pakistan, for example, where the people perceive it as being anti-Muslim. The cosmetic attempts by the West to reassure the Islamic world and to pretend to humanitarianism would be laughable if it was not such a tragedy. Syria is now on the Security Council, that great protector of human rights. It is a hotbed where terrorism, torture and all the rest of it is fostered. Saudi Arabia is one of the allies. Where did all this originate? It is not an accident that Osama bin Laden is a principal focus. He is a Saudi Arabian and much money came from there. The state religion of Saudi Arabia is not too far removed from Osama bin Laden's attitude. It just happens to suit us because of the oil to keep the current regime in Saudi Arabia in power. It is in our interest but it is perhaps not in the interests of the ordinary people there. One could really be cynical about it.

The various governments are not behind hand in being cynical either. They are using this and there is a real danger, which I hope this House will guard against, that this crisis will be used to force through an already pre-existing agenda of clipping away at human rights in legislative terms, such as removing the right to silence and so on. They are all on the cards now and things that were difficult to get through before suddenly find an opportune moment. It behoves both Houses of the Oireachtas to make sure that we clearly examine any legislation which is proposed along these lines.

Today we had the sad news of the murder of the Israeli Cabinet Minister, Mr. Ze'evi, but that again is sadly instructive. President Arafat instantly condemned it and issued orders for the arrest of the perpetrators, yet Mr. Sharon holds him personally responsible. It seems that whatever Mr. Arafat does he is going to be made responsible. It makes me wonder whether Mr. Sharon was responsible for the actions of the settlers. Is the Government of Israel responsible for the murder of Yitzhak Rabin? It is the same argument and we have to have what they laughingly call a level playing field in this area.

I would like to look at a few of the issues raised in the Minister's speech. She spoke about the need to dismantle terrorist camps in the area under the control of the Taliban. I agree. What about the principal one in the United States of America, the camp of the Americas, which was established, partly at least, with the intention and certainly with the effect of training some of the death squads used against the civilian population in South America? Let us have a closure of that. I honour the Roman Catholic priest who every year protests outside and is put in jail for his trouble, as I honour the Irish priest who ministered to the firemen and was shown on television just going in to show solidarity when the building collapsed on top of him. I heard on a chat programme on RTE radio that he was an openly gay priest in New York. We have to take into account the human complexity. As all my colleagues have said, it was not just clean-cut all-American kids who were killed. The World Trade Centre was involved, not the American trade centre. As has been pointed out, Muslim people, gay people, women, Pakistanis, so many nations were savagely affected by this atrocity.

I notice that the Minister of State is here in lonely state without advisers and there appears to be no media so, perhaps, we are simply talking into cotton wool. It seems it would be right in this debate to question the use of Irish airspace for these raids, especially since we are unsure of the effect of these military operations and particularly since we hear so much about smart bombs. Then we discover that the UN mine-clearing operation and the International Red Cross have been hit and they have protested strongly to the United Nations and the US. We do not really know what the effect is. It appeared we had given the Americans a blank cheque, but I do not think we should do that. We need to know more about the end product of these military operations in terms of civilian casualties.

On that matter I honour the journalists. Sometimes it seems a little frivolous when someone tries to get into a country dressed in disguise and so on, but I listened to John Simpson, a very fine reporter, and I realised that it must take great courage to get in there and expose oneself to such real and terrible dangers.

I would like in my final remarks to make three points. In talking about the resolution in areas such as financing terrorism and denying safe haven to terrorists, let us have Switzerland at the Bar here. Let us hear it account for the enormous amounts of money secreted away by dictators and torturers. Let us look at, perhaps, having a UN protectorate declared in Afghanistan because the Northern Alliance is no great shakes. It is up to its ears in drugs, rape and torture. Why replace a regime with one that could be even worse?

There are other things I could say but I bow to the Chair's indication that my time is up. I wish to return to the one point I made that I think might be of value to the discussion, that is that our civil servants, particularly now that we have the Presidency of the United Nations Security Council, should look at the question of a definition of "terrorism". I offer the one I gave to this House. It is clear and simple and covers the points. The only reason I can imagine there are difficulties with any such definition is that the smoking gun might point back at the hand that wrote that definition.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

I expect the purpose of today's debate is to express our sympathy and solidarity with the people of the United States following the terrible events of 11 September and to make a helpful contribution, small though it may be, and point to a resolution of the present difficulties while at the same time reflect the views of the ordinary man and woman in the street who often become irrelevant and voiceless in this arena, which has now become a war arena.

The date 11 September will forever remain etched on our minds and hearts. The memory will be with us for the rest of our lives, perhaps, because we saw the dramatic pictures on television but more so because of the close ties which exist, and have always existed, between Ireland and the United States.

Speaking at a function in the Mansion House some months ago, long before this terrible event happened, I stated that Ireland and America are sister nations. I do not think I overstated the case. The debate was in the context of whether we are more American than European, not that it really matters because all these issues in their own right are organic. I do not think one will ever remove from the folk memory what America has meant to Ireland during our darkest days. It was an open society and by and large it welcomed the huge exodus of people who departed this land from famine times onwards. Up to the present day we sense that the Irish are a privileged people where America is concerned. Often legislation is enacted to be helpful to the Irish when, perhaps, certain difficulties are placed in the way of other nationalities entering the United States. At the same time many of our people have inter-married with Americans. For that reason the American people have been coming to Ireland for decades. They were welcome and we treated them as close friends, as we should have done, and at the same time they seem to have a particular grá for the Irish people. That is very much part of our folk memory and our folklore, and nothing will change that.

When this terrible event took place on 11 September we expected that at the heart of the tragedy would be Ireland and the Irish people. In the whole rescue operation the firemen and the police had a strong Irish representation. In the intervening weeks I have learned that people with whom I was friendly had children in the fire fighting services at that time. A daughter of a good friend of mine was in the Pentagon at the time the plane struck but luckily she was not injured. It is clear that we are inextricably bound together as two nations. That will underline all our actions, concerns and emotions about 11 September.

We hope it will be possible, difficult as it may be, for the American people to come to terms with the lingering trauma which will be there for this and future generations. That trauma can have a devastating effect on the morale of people. It will have a devastating effect on those who are bereaved and those who have suffered. It is difficult to find words of consolation. All people, civic and religious, have endeavoured to console those who are suffering, but for future generations that suffering will continue. I can understand why the American people would want retribution – that is a word I do not particularly like and I certainly do not like the word "revenge". The word "revenge" may not have been used, but certainly retribution is on people's minds. Over the centuries we have discovered that where people seek retribution for retribution's sake, no matter how much they have suffered, it makes absolutely no contribution whatsoever to providing them with consolation, nor does it in any way provide them with protection in the future.

If, on the other hand, the American people, through their administration, wish to protect themselves in the future, I do not think any sensible person could deny them that right. We in this country have often found it difficult, even though it was a matter of right is might where we were concerned and at the same time we were the vulnerable people, but we always felt we had a moral right to defend ourselves. Every nation has that right. It is very difficult for a small nation to counsel a bigger nation as to the manner in which it should pursue that protection and ensure its security in the future. In many ways the reason what happened on 11 September has taken people by surprise is that a power like America was so vulnerable, a power that perhaps everyone thought of as being impregnable when it came to defences. This has shocked American society to the very core and the reverberations are being felt throughout the civilised world. This, together with the concern for the terrible tragedy, can be a motivating factor while at the same time it can be exceptionally dangerous.

We have all listened to the many debates and discussions about the war against Afghanistan. We were given to understand that it would be directed solely towards military installations. However, we know from previous wars that in spite of advanced technology in military weapons it is not possible to ensure civilian lives will not be endangered. If that is so, one must look at the morality of the extent to which one can endanger civilian lives. I do not think it is a matter of quantity where that morality is concerned, it is a matter of quality. If one accepts that one can endanger civilian lives, one must also accept that whether 5,000, 10,000 or 500,000 lives are endangered, one is accepting civilians can be put at risk "for the greater good". This requires analysis and the debate which is currently taking place is very often misinterpreted and misrepresented.

I spoke recently to two young Irish-Americans who were home from Connecticut. I knew these people before they travelled to America and I have since met them there on many occasions. When I met them at a funeral they said to me in whispered tones that they were shocked at the amount of anti-American sentiment they had discerned in Ireland during their recent visit. I think their shock came from the fact that perhaps they did not notice that sentiment in the past but they certainly noticed it this time in a very concentrated manner. I tried to give them a balanced response because, on the one hand, it is true and, on the other, it is not true. I said to them that when one endeavours to measure that anti-American sentiment, it would be wrong to measure it only by what one sees and hears in the media; one must also listen to the ordinary people. I was anxious to know if they had observed anti-American sentiment to the same extent among the ordinary people and they admitted they had not. I then said that perhaps they mistook what they heard as anti-American sentiment, that it may really have been an effort by a neutral country to provide a helpful analysis and that if something is said that does not fit strictly within the accepted guidelines of the American Administration they should not regard it as anti-American sentiment. It behoves a neutral nation, in fact it behoves all nations, in this debate to ensure we do not allow the heat of the moment to dull our sensitivities, the manner in which we judge things or dull our humanity to think the only immediate prospect is to bomb another country. That in itself is not anti-American sentiment and I expect as time passes that the American people will be pleased we engaged in such analysis.

There is a grave danger in the context of the atmosphere which has followed from 11 September that terrible deeds can be done. I am thinking of what can happen in such an atmosphere, that is, that good men and good women may not express their views, which would be wrong, and that the media which are largely controlled by a monopoly, which in itself is tied to profit and is very often tied to a particular administration, in an international sense as distinct from the Irish media, may not make the normal ethical judgments which are expected from the media. I would go a step further by saying that some of the people who have stepped out of line, in particular Robert Fisk who has front line and at the coalface experience and simply used his standing as a journalist and the outlets he had to create a balanced approach, have been demonised in a very empty and cruel manner. That is wrong because, having read what Robert Fisk said, he certainly was not justifying terrorism. He sympathised with the terrible trauma and tragedy of the American people, yet he was demonised. Lesser men and lesser women may withdraw from the pitch when that type of criticism is directed towards them. For the good of the world it is important that we do not allow that to happen.

Currently there are certain inherent dangers which may in time be a serious threat to world order. Every time one engenders hate and every time one creates a further extension of a cause, that, in turn, will produce more foot soldiers down the road. We may have a much bigger problem removed from one particular country and directed at another – in fact, it may be what some people have predicted as a clash of civilisations. I do not think the PR section of the American Administration has succeeded in alleviating the fears of Muslims that this is not directed against them – I accept it is not. I do not think the Americans have alleviated Muslims' fears by the bizarre efforts of dropping minute proportions of food to the people in Afghanistan. While watching television last night I saw two or three people picking up the little yellow bags like mushrooms, taking them away and selling them. This was in no way confronting the terrible humanitarian problem which exists on the ground. It is a bizarre effort. It worries me that this is being done in tandem with the bombing campaign.

Anyone who counsels caution at a time like this could easily ask what is the alternative. It is not easy to come up with answers. It is not easy to diminish the rage the American people feel nor to assuage their fears at this time. However, the danger and damage done by the approach which is being taken at present, which is largely war focused, could be much greater than what took place on 11 September. We must bear in mind that the American Administration has gone into many countries and financed irregular groups, the Taliban being one of them. It helped to put them in place in their battle against the Soviet Union. The suggestion now is that they be removed and a new administration put in their place. One can consider Chile among other countries where a similar situation happened. Fire-brigade type political action by external governments will not put an administration in place that will deliver the type of assurances regarding security that they rightly expect. This can not and will not happen. It certainly will not happen in Afghanistan where there are disparate groups of people with different traditions and religious emphases.

In finding a solution, it behoves us to think of long-term solutions. For example, in Africa, millions of people are threatened by the AIDS epidemic – children, men and women. We have the medicines available to help them but the companies that own the patent rights to those medicines will not allow them to be produced at low cost so they can be made more widely available. Beef mountains and milk lakes developed while people starved. It is possible for America to deliver to Pakistan what television reports described as their reward of £500 million. It is grotesque to consider that they are being rewarded to participate in this conflict, when that same money – the billions of pounds that have been directed towards military aggression – could have been directed towards aid. This would have shown these poorer nations that the West is not just about domination and exploitation of their oil or about helping only when our own military standing is at stake. There are much bigger issues. The humanitarian issue could have been resolved and bin Laden and his ilk would not have had the opportunity to attract supporters to his cause and provoke them to commit the atrocities that we have seen.

Ireland has a particular contribution to make. The Government has been cautious and the Taoiseach said in the Dáil that the help being offered was not without condition. It is possible for Ireland to be an honest broker. In spite of the concern we all have for our American colleagues and in spite of our condemnation of the terrorism we saw in the United States, we would make a better contribution to America and to world order if we removed some of the circumstances that provoked the action that we have witnessed.

I commend the Irish media for the contribution they have made to balanced coverage. We must protect the status that Ireland enjoys throughout the world. There will be a greater regard for us if we do not allow ourselves to be sucked into a situation where we are not making that contribution.

Some of the language used by US spokespersons is unhelpful, such as references to bringing in people dead or alive, smoking guns and collateral damage. That language does not help, in spite of the justice of their cause. I am worried about the role that is being played by Mr. Blair in Britain. As I see him travelling throughout the world, I ask if his role is that of Prime Minister of an independent state or a puppet of America. Whatever the answer is, commentators in Britain and many of the MPs are asking the same question. This is not in criticism of Mr. Blair. I have great regard for him. He is an exceptionally fine statesman and many of us have looked up to him as a man who broke the mould. I would not like to see him lose his standing or having damaged his image when the smoke and the dust have cleared. I say the same about Ireland. We must be careful of our status, image and our neutral and independent role.

Dr. Henry

I am delighted with Senator Ó Murchú's assertion that our close association with America means we have to urge caution when we feel it is necessary. From the beginning, I felt that the Taoiseach did not offer support unconditionally. It is because of our long friendship and association with the USA that we act as an honest broker wherever possible.

This is the third time I have addressed the House on the issue of biological weapons but it is an appropriate time to raise it again. I have also asked the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to bring it to the attention of the President of the Security Council, our own Foreign Minister, when they visit the UN next month.

In 1972 a biological weapons and toxins convention was brought forward by the UN to try to prevent the proliferation and use of such grotesque weapons of mass destruction. We were one of the early signatories and by 1975 sufficient nations had signed that the convention was ratified. Unfortunately, there was no verification protocol inserted in the original convention, so there was no method of inspecting various countries to see if they were living up to their obligations.

In 1994 it was decided by a group of countries, including Ireland in a very prominent position, to try to bring forward a protocol which would insert a verification process into the 1972 weapons convention. Progress on this had been going well over the last six years and it was hoped there would be agreement for the fifth review of the convention which is to take place next month. Unfortunately, on 25 July, the US pulled out of the convention saying it was not in its interest to have this verification protocol brought forward. Since unanimity was required, there has been disarray among the countries who were in favour of the protocol.

It is extraordinary that the first country to have biological weapons used against it is the United States of America. Anthrax is one of the most important of these weapons and ironically, the country that is suffering from the results of the absence of a protocol is the USA. I suggest that, as good friends of America, we should urge it to come back immediately into the ad hoc group which is trying to put forward this protocol next month. It is not too late. Various countries had minor objections to the protocol but the US was the only one that pulled out, leaving it in disarray.

I was remarkably distressed by the contribution of Ambassador Mahley in Geneva when he spoke of the reasons America was pulling out of the convention. One of them was that it was going to research better methods of the prevention of these diseases being lethal within a nation. This is all very well for a developed country like the USA but how can it be applied to the undeveloped world? We spent years vaccinating against smallpox and finally eradicated it. It could be one of the most potent weapons of mass destruction if once again it came upon the scene.

Since the Gulf War the UN, and Americans in particular, have been complaining about Iraq's tardiness in allowing inspections of its weapons dumps. Since 1998 there have not been any inspections, as it was found that they were useless. What about inspections in other countries? I was rather depressed to see the chief weapons inspector at the UN, Richard Butler, suggest last night on television that the anthrax bacteria could have come from Iraq or from some state of the former Soviet Union. All these countries have plenty of biological weapons – Iraq's, unfortunately, supplied by the USA when they were good friends – but could it not have been home-grown? Anthrax is in numerous laboratories within the USA and these laboratories are not inspected. It is said that pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies put great pressure on the Bush Administration to prevent this protocol coming into force and unfortunately that is all too likely.

It will be possible, with time, to decide where these strains of anthrax have come from. Most of the letters concerned have been posted within the USA. It has been suggested that the strain in question was present in the USA in the 1950s. It could have been given to another country in the interim, but the enemy within can often be much more difficult to deal with than the enemy without. Most European countries have a tight regime regarding the inspection of laboratories. I congratulate our own Academy of Medical Laboratory Science, which periodically runs an article in its professional magazine asking the reader what is in the back of the fridge. It is useful for everyone to check on everyone else. This view should be promoted and accepted worldwide.

We need to ensure that those countries with biological weapons have the resources to get rid of them. This will require finance from the UN. I spoke at a medical lecture in Rostov-on-Don during the summer. There were fears expressed that underpaid state employees there were open to bribery. If money is needed to help the countries of the former Soviet Union to get rid of their weapons, it should be made available. Because of our position on the UN Security Council, Ireland should try to do something about this.

The USA has lists of biological weapons, from Korean haemorrhagic fever to yellow fever, Rocky mountain spotted fever, bubonic plague, anthrax and smallpox along with diseases affecting animals and plants. The USA used biological weapons, for example Agent Orange, in the Vietnam war and it is now using them in Bolivia and Columbia in an attempt to eradicate the coca plant. Ireland could make a great effort in this area.

The humanitarian problems in Afghanistan appear dire. In less than four weeks the first snows are expected which, according to those who know the terrain, will make the movement of large quantities of humanitarian aid very difficult. The situation is urgent. Does the bombing need to go on? It is said that all important military targets have been destroyed. With the amount of bombing that has occurred I am amazed that civilian casualty figures are so small, especially taking into account the use of cluster bombs, which have an effect similar to landmines.

Like Senator Ó Murchú and others, I was fascinated by the idea of dropping packages of aid at the same time as the bombs. When I was a child, we used to study the famine of the 1840s in school. One of the criticisms of the aid sent by Great Britain was that we were incapable of cooking Indian meal and did not think much of eating it. The contents of the yellow packets dropped include the makings of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, which is bizarre. I am sure they are very popular in New Jersey and Wisconsin, but I do not know if they eat them in downtown Kabul. It is sad that a great country like the USA thinks this is a suitable form of humanitarian aid. The lack of insight is pathetic. It is also dangerous. Long before this bombing, 25 people per day were being killed and maimed due to landmines left over from wars in Afghanistan. I can understand the rage of humanitarian organisations who see this ridiculous effort while they lack safe passage for their trucks to bring food that is urgently needed. Iran has had refugees for more than a decade and now has more than a million refugees from Afghanistan to deal with. Support for Iran and Pakistan would be useful.

The atrocity of 11 September has resulted in strange bedfellows. Those who were enemies yesterday are friends today – the payment of a few shekels seems to get people on to one's side rapidly. That is life, but it is interesting that people talk about an atrocity against the civilised world. When we were running around in goatskins, that part of the world was the civilised world. Life has ups and downs and Afghanistan is on a down swing at the moment. Considering its economic state, with statistics such as maternal and infant mortality figures among the worst in the world, is bombing necessary to subdue this nation?

I spoke at a meeting of the Philosophical Society at Trinity College last week and one of the other speakers, the British Labour Party MP, George Galloway, was critical of the bombing. He said that for many years the Irish would not extradite people for political crimes. The Taliban are being asked to extradite bin Laden for what they would term a political crime. Americans may know he is in Afghanistan, but how would we have felt if the British had suddenly decided to bomb Dundalk or north or south Dublin if they knew that people liable for IRA crimes were here and they wanted us to extradite them? We would have been pretty aggrieved.

The Taliban leaders also ask for evidence. Why should they be any different from us? This is especially true since the Taliban is now apparently being recognised as the government. However, until early September it was not recognised. It is very hard on the people of Afghanistan, because they are being asked to replace one appalling regime with another lot, which seems to be pretty bad too.

Owing to the dreadful lack of medical care in Afghanistan, the Pakistanis are allowing seriously injured people to cross the border. However, a very large number of people are getting no medical care. This has been the case for some time. The Taliban refused education to women so that women and children have been getting virtually no health care.

We are friends of the Americans and it is important to point out that we have criticisms of what they are doing. Sometimes that may put a little frisson in the friendship but that does not matter. If we keep our mouths shut, we will do them a disservice in the long run. The Taoiseach's statement that our support is not unqualified is a much wiser path to take than the attitude some people in America believe we should have, which would not be correct from a moral and ultimately from a social point of view.

Mr. Mooney

I welcome the initiative by the Leader and agreed by the House to have this debate now. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace.

Like the other contributors and most recently my colleague, Senator Henry, I too am very pro-American for a variety of cultural and historical reasons. However, I also firmly believe we cannot allow a superpower – now the only superpower – to react militarily without some qualification for the support of countries like Ireland. We have a unique role to play. It is evident that we are punching way above our weight internationally, given our size.

As I said at a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs recently, the fact that we hold the chair of the Security Council is significant, but of greater significance is the 130 votes we received in getting elected. Since we are chairing the Security Council during this critical and momentous month, our influence is enormous.

I know, from my experience of meeting representatives from various Arab countries, that because of our non-aligned status and because we have no colonial baggage, Ireland is seen as a beacon and a country that will stand up against human rights abuses and for those who, like us, have suffered under the yolk of colonialism and imperialism as many Middle Eastern countries did throughout history. There is a great weight of expectation from those countries. They look to Ireland in its pivotal role to be a moderately influencing factor in what is going on in Afghanistan.

I echo the comments made on all sides of the House that the Americans should continue to show restraint in so far as it is possible when embarking on military action. I am very concerned about the change in modalities of the military hardware over the last week. We have gone from what we are told is precise cruise missile targeting of Taliban assets to the use of cluster bombs, really a series of mini bombs, which on hitting the ground scatter in all directions and then explode. This is happening in the second most mined country in the world after Angola.

On television we see the evidence of injured boys and girls. Last week one of the news programmes showed a very poignant scene of a young girl who had lost her foot. In the culture of that country she is now effectively an outcast with very little to look forward to in the future. That is the scale of the humanitarian disaster that has befallen the people of Afghanistan. Added to that is now this ongoing war to flush out bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

At a recent meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I asked a question of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, which I knew she would be unable to answer. However it is a question which should be repeatedly posed. Do the Americans have a plan B? Is this just about drop ping cluster bombs to take out the Taliban regime and ultimately the bin Laden network, while using the same planes to drop peanut butter and jello, which is happening indiscriminately as there is no monitoring on the ground? This needs to be addressed quickly by America and Britain, the main protagonists in the war or attrition against bin Laden and the Taliban.

The media do not have access to what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan. In the initial stages of the bombing campaign last week, the base offices of the various media organisations in London, New York and elsewhere had to telephone their representatives on the border in Pakistan to inform them they had picked up pictures of the first wave of bombing in Kabul from the al-Jazeera satellite transmitting from Oman. The correspondents on the ground had no knowledge of this and this is still the case. Consequently, we, the general public, have no knowledge of what is happening there.

There is a military campaign that we conditionally support against a regime that is clearly using a satellite television station with access to Afghanistan for propaganda purposes as much as for truth and we have a media presence on the Afghan border unable to verify any of the statements emanating from either the allies or the Taliban. Consequently we must rely on anecdotal evidence from people in hospitals or refugee camps as they pour out of Afghanistan.

Philip Knightly is a distinguished journalist who wrote a book that should be read by all those with an interest in how war is waged. The title is self-explanatory: The First Casualty. This comes from the saying: “When war is declared, truth is the first casualty.” Throughout history, people have manipulated truth to their own ends and as there is increasing concern across the world, particularly among the allies and in countries like Ireland at the continuance of the bombing campaign, there will inevitably be some slippage in standards and the best possible spin will be put on stories coming from Afghanistan.

I mention this because I come from a media background and it pales in significance when compared with the humanitarian disaster that has befallen the people of Afghanistan, referred to by the Minister, Deputy O'Donnell. I was impressed by her constant and repeated references to the critical role of the United Nations. This should be a very reassuring statement to those outside this House and perhaps some within it who assume that Ireland has in some way diluted its neutrality or shifted away from the basic tenet of its foreign policy that any overseas adventures should be UN mandated. Ireland remains very firmly within the school of thought that the United Nations is paramount in decision-making relating to any engagement in military activity, and certainly as it applies to Ireland.

The Minister of State outlined initially that she recognises the right of any nation, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, to individual and collective self-defence. Nobody can argue with that. I can not nor would I wish to argue with the Americans' righteous anger at what happened on, as they refer to it, 9.11, and on the need to respond. Like many others, however, I was taken aback by the moderating tone of the Administration statements in the immediate aftermath of 9.11 and that they did not go for the jugular. They were restrained, measured and reflective in regard to the decision it would take. Now that it has made the decision to engage in military activity, as the world's only super power and with the recognition by the US President and his Administration that America is now part of that family of nations that has experienced terrorist attacks, there is a moral as much as a practical obligation on the United States to remember that in any action it takes in any other part of the world outside its borders, there are other countries in the family of nations which have as great a concern about the progress of international terrorism because it affects all of us, directly or indirectly.

American foreign policy has been changed dramatically as a result of 9.11, and one of the most positive manifestations of that is the public acknowledgement in the past few weeks by the US President, a Republican President, that Palestine has the right to self-determination and to nationhood. That change was so significant that it prompted Prime Minister Sharon to go back in history and parallel the current state of history with the state of Czechoslovakia in 1938. With all due respects to Mr. Sharon and his historical advisers, I would not agree that there is any parallel between the position of Israel today and the position of the poor people of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and its Administration who were literally thrown to the dogs of Nazism and whose country was broken up as a result.

The Minister of State referred to the fact that there is now a momentum in relation to the Middle East, and specifically to Palestine, that did not exist previously. There is now an urgency about attempting to address the real inequities in the relationship between Israel and Palestine that did not exist previously. There is now a belated but genuine acknowledgement by leaders from George W. Bush to Tony Blair, who are leading the allied campaign, that the Palestine issue has to be settled fairly and justly. I would say to my Israeli friends that if the United States has, since the creation of the state of Israel, acted as a guarantor of their right to exist, the right to their own safe borders and to defend themselves from any attack that would be made on them, surely they should also recognise, at this momentous time in our history, that Palestine could be given the same rights and also would have imposed upon it the same obligations to live in peace with its neighbour fairly and justly. If that opportunity is not grasped, it may pass.

I agree fully with what the Minister of State outlined on the priorities Ireland has indicated at the Security Council. I would hope that in our capacity as Chair of the Security Council we would use whatever influence we have to impress upon the Americans the need to have an orderly and effective distribution of food and in that context where better to look than at the NGOs, of which those of us in Ireland are so proud. They were in Afghanistan when it was not popular to be there. They were also in other trouble spots which had gone off the front pages of the national newspapers and our television screens. Irish NGOs were in Afghanistan during the past ten years when the world left that country to its own devices following the Soviet withdrawal. Ireland is currently putting its money where its mouth is in that an impressive sum of money is being allocated for humanitarian aid. Politically and internationally, we are setting a standard for other countries of our size and prosperity that they too should dig deep and ensure there are sufficient resources available to address what is a very real humanitarian problem.

I hope that in our discussions at Security Council level, where it is obvious that we have enormous influence, we can impress upon our American cousins that there is a need for a plan B and that it is not enough to talk about bombing on the one hand and dropping peanut butter and jello on the other. There has to be a coherent and effective food distribution programme, and they could use the expertise of Irish NGOs who have been calling for that repeatedly over the past few weeks. If that happens, and if there is some indication from the Americans in the next week or two weeks before the harsh winter sets in, that they are prepared to work in consultation and partnership with those who have the expertise to deliver food on the ground effectively to the people of Afghanistan, we will have done a good day's work.

Mr. D. Cregan

I wish to share my time with Senator Quinn.

An Cathaoirleach

That is agreed.

Mr. D. Cregan

Like other speakers, I would be pro-USA. I found the events of 11 September very frightening and disturbing. I listened to Senator Mooney make the point that the United States did not act speedily after the atrocities. Discussions went on as to what should be done, and we waited to see if they would act at all.

The discussion that is going on is broadening to include Afghanistan and the issue of refugees all over the world, particularly in that part of the world. The amount of money going towards that problem, particularly into Afghanistan from the United States, was not small, even before the tragedy of 11 September.

I find it disturbing that we are getting away from what happened on 11 September to discuss what is happening in Afghanistan, which is frightening, but we must also ask what has been done by the people of Afghanistan and the Taliban who now have authority in that country. Afghani stan is the second most mined country in the world. Who laid those mines? The United States did not do that. The twin towers was not a military base. Who carried out that attack? I have not heard anybody in the debate ask about the pressure that should be imposed to make sure that international terrorism comes to an end. We all agree with that but nobody has said it yet. Nobody asked why we were not discussing that question.

The coalition of nations who came to the aid of America after 11 September was very impressive and heartening. The Canadians, the French, the British and Ireland came forward, and why not? American society is very liberal. The structures in America created the environment in which the twin towers incident occurred because they allowed it to happen. The Israelis do not do that. In the past 30 years they made sure that they knew what could happen. Unfortunately I am not a genius in terms of speaking about the hunger of people but I can understand it. I do not want one life to be lost because I want people to live for their country, but I do not want anybody carrying out an atrocity like that on the twin towers again. We all have a responsibility in ensuring that does not happen.

We currently hold the Chair of the Security Council, and the United Nations and NATO are saying that this terrorism must stop and we must give assistance in every way. We can talk about terrorism because we have experienced it in our own land. Whether we like it or not, people who are terrorists have walked free from our courts, and we must face up to that. It is coming close to us now and we are discovering that these people are very dangerous. More than 6,000 people were killed in the twin towers, which were over 800 feet in height and extended seven stories below ground. They will never be found. That should be borne in mind before turning to Afghanistan and its people.

There has been laughter at the nature of the foodstuffs that have been dropped on Afghanistan. The food packaging is more expensive than the food itself. It is a sad reflection on the propaganda campaign.

Senator Mooney correctly said that truth is the first casualty of war. Will those responsible for the atrocity of the twin towers tell the truth? Enormous sums of money are at their disposal in the Arab world. These are not being spent on the people with the result that there is widespread poverty. The situation in the western world cannot be compared with that.

There is jealousy in the Arab world of the way the West has developed. Two thousand years ago roles were reversed. Egypt was then the richest country in the world. Why did this happen? Is it because wealth has been concentrated among the few?

My concern is for the future. We have no right to believe we do not have a responsibility to face up to the threat of international terrorism. What happened on 11 September was frightening and we have a responsibility to our children to make sure nothing like it happens again. We also have a responsibility to the children of Afghanistan, such as the child who lost his leg.

We must not forget that approximately 80 countries lost people in the twin towers. The death toll could have been as high as 60,000 and as many as ten airplanes could have been involved. Over two million people commute to Manhattan every day.

The world will never be the same again and, given its power, the US could create a totally different world order. It could close its Mexican and Canadian borders and become more isolationist. The rest of the world would suffer the consequences.

Everybody has a responsibility in this situation. It is alarming for the Taliban to try to give the impression that the fault lies with everyone other than themselves. They allowed this situation to arise.

The extreme wealth side by side with extreme poverty in some Arab countries is alarming. The blame for this should not be directed solely at the west. We must help in every way we can. It is something at which this county is good. The destruction on 11 September was frightening. It must be faced up to. Local and international terrorism must be grasped. We all have a responsibility in this regard.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Unlike previous speakers I will not say whether I am pro-American or anti-American. We are part of the same world and regardless of whether our backgrounds are Christian, Islamic or Jewish, we are human beings with responsibilities to each other. We all sympathise with those caught up in that awful event on 11 September, which brought such calamity and destruction to many families across the United States. It was an appalling terrorist attack.

It is important to examine the reasons behind these atrocities, even though it is very difficult to understand the minds of terrorists. The world is made up of governments of various kinds, be they democratic, dictatorships or whatever. Ultimately their overriding interests appear to be economic and these colour their actions and responses.

Osama bin Laden appears to have been the chief organiser and perpetrator of this event. He comes from a specific tradition and is supported by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. With the support of the Security Council, decisions have been taken on what needs to be done.

Previous speakers referred to the fallout of the action that has been taken. At the outset the US reacted carefully. It secured support among a coalition of nations, including practically all western governments, to outlaw terrorism. However, it has now proceeded with military action and, unfortunately, despite the best intentions innocent civilians have been killed. As recently as yesterday a Red Cross storehouse was bombed in Kabul. There is no excuse for such mistakes. We cannot afford them and, given the apparent high precision of technology, including satellites, they are unacceptable. It is fine to make apologies but they are no good to those who have been unfairly killed or injured.

Some of the poorest people in the world live in Afghanistan and they face famine and droughts. It is a nonsense to drop jello on these areas, especially when the people do not have drinking water. We must be realistic. Senator Henry referred to this aspect. It is a farce.

Americans have built a great country, which has provided a haven for many Irish people – approximately 44 million Americans claim Irish descent. However, while American Governments might claim to be the main proponents of the human rights agenda, they promote economic before human interests. For example, it is apparent that the economic interests of oil in the southern states of America and in the Middle East usually take precedence.

There can be duplicity and hypocrisy everywhere and American Governments pursue their business with a level of duplicity and inconsistency. There is a need for them to examine their policies and to develop a greater understanding of other traditions and culture. There is also a need for further talks.

I was unable to attend the meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs at which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, was present. I commend the Minister on the fine manner in which he has acquitted himself on behalf of Ireland. He spoke on the day subsequent to the atrocities. He was in Palestine with President Arafat and the way he spoke there and the way he empathised was second to none. It was highly commendable and has done an extraordinarily fine job. He must be commended for the role he is playing and for the way he is acquitting himself during our Presidency of the UN Security Council. We are very proud of how he has flown the Irish flag.

There is, however, a need for him to raise questions and he should immediately do so with the United States of America in relation to the mistakes that have occurred already. The American aviation authority, the FAA, has issued a directive to all executive jets and to all American planes that they are not to land in Shannon or other Irish airports for security reasons. We need an explanation why we are deemed to be an area of high risk where aircraft should not land. Over the past number of weeks a number of executive jets that would normally land in Shannon to be serviced have not landed having been directed by the FAA not to do so. At the same time US planes taking part in the war in Afghanistan and travelling on to bases in Europe and the Middle East are landing at Shannon to be refuelled and resupplied. It is not good enough that the American aviation authority should give a directive of this nature in relation to this sovereign state. We are not aware that we pose a security risk. How has the USA deemed us to be one? The USA has a responsibility to give us an answer and I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, to get an answer and let us know where we stand.

Mr. Costello

I wish to share my time with Senator Ryan. I thank Senator Farrell for his generosity in letting us have this slot.

On behalf of Senator Farrell I mention Kieran Gorman, a Sligo man who died in the twin towers. We offer all our sympathy to his wife, family and his brothers who are still in Sligo. He was very unfortunate to be there on that day.

The tragic events of 11 September have resonated around the globe. Everybody has been shocked by what happened there. For the very first time war has been brought to the heart of the United States of America and it is a war of terrorism which has deeply shocked that country. It has caused enormous fear and worry. The aftermath is the war being visited on the people of Afghanistan. Most countries were at one in their sympathy for the United States in the wake of the terrorist acts perpetrated against the American people. Likewise, everybody, including the United Nations, supports the United States in bringing to justice those who committed those crimes. However, not everybody believes Afghanistan and the millions living there in poverty with poor education and who face famine after years of drought, are one and the same with those who committed those crimes. Not all the Taliban are Osama bin Ladens. Every person in Afghanistan certainly does not support him. Visiting the full force of the war on the people of Afghanistan has to be questioned in terms of what the outcome might be and how it serves the intention to bring to justice those responsible. It is one thing to say that every bomb dropped is a smart bomb that will hit its target; it is another to ensure that happens. We know from the bombing of the Red Cross depot yesterday that it does not happen. There are rumours of a school having been bombed today.

We want to know what is going to happen after this. Where is the next stage? The ground war is supposed to be delayed. It is an ongoing bombing event with no activity on the ground as yet. What will be the outcome? What role is the United Nations playing in bringing about a solution and how do the United States of America and its allies intend to pursue this war to its conclusion? How many face starvation? Most people pointed out the irony of dropping bombs at the same time as distributing food. It is a strange war that is being fought. The question of where we are going from here has to be asked. The Minister said the likely refugee fallout from this will be five times that generated by the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. That figure was colossal. Many people face starvation and the winter will be upon us in a month's time and it will affect all the people of Afghanistan.

We need to see a sense of urgency as to where the United States is going and some sense of direction. Is the United Nations playing a role? Are we playing a role in terms of our position on the Security Council? It is very difficult to see. It is as though everybody is standing back and allowing the United States to carry on as it wishes for as long as it wants. It is time there was a sense of direction towards a peace process. What is being done about Palestine? That is really the crux of all of this. We have seen a Minister assassinated today and things could easily get out of hand in terms of perceptions and what is presented. No doubt what bin Laden wants is a show down between East and West, between Islam and what are perceived as the Christian nations of the West.

From our position on the Security Council we need to ask hard questions. The Minister for Foreign Affairs needs to ask in what direction this is going, what is the timescale and what will be the eventual outcome.

Mr. Ryan

Let us reiterate that what was done on 11 September was wrong and no injustice could justify it. That needs to be said again and again, but nor can any injustice justify a war if it loses proportionality, if it goes out of control and if it begins to do more harm than good.

I want to bring some figures to the attention of the House but I do not do it to in any way minimise the sin of commission and the brutality of 11 September in New York. I recount the figures to talk about the planet's sins of omission. For instance, given the average over the year, on 11 September 24,000 died of hunger around the world, the day 6,000 or 7,000 were killed in the twin towers. Based on the average, 6,000 children died of diarrhoea that day. Measles would have killed 2,700 children even as the brutality was perpetrated on the twin towers. There are 1.2 billion who live on the equivalent of less than $1 a day and 3 billion have to live on the equivalent of less than $2 a day. In the ten year period from 1990 to 2000 an average of 200,000 children a year were killed in conflicts on this planet. On average, in that period, 1.2 million children were made homeless by conflict.

Brutality will never be ended by greater brutality. The brutality that took place before the attack on the twin towers will not be ended by the brutality of that act, and neither will the brutality of that act be ended by further brutality. There is only one way to peace and that is through justice. There is only one way we can ultimately achieve justice, and that is through peace.

There are specific issues we now need to confront, the first of which – in terms of what I have just said about conflict – is the question of the international arms industry, particularly the alarming increase in the number of licences being issued in this State to export weapons which are at least of dual use and, in some cases, of single use. If we are to institute justice, we must deal with conflict and its sources and weapons. We can deal with all three if we wish.