Enda Kenny
Question:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he expects to visit the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1012/04]
View answerWednesday, 18 February 2004
Questions (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will convene a meeting of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board during his next visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1013/04]
View answerEnda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place in his Department for maintaining contact with the Ireland-America Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1014/04]
View answer
Pat Rabbitte
Question:11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he plans to visit the United States around St. Patrick's Day; the programme agreed for such a visit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1190/04]
View answer
Trevor Sargent
Question:12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his plans to travel to the United States for the St. Patrick's holidays; the agenda for that visit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1278/04]
View answer
Joe Higgins
Question:13 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the President of the United States of America; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1834/04]
View answerJoe Higgins
Question:14 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the US Administration. [1835/04]
View answerJoe Higgins
Question:15 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his priorities for his visit to the United States around St. Patrick's Day; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3705/04]
View answerEnda Kenny
Question:16 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent discussions with the United States envoy to Northern Ireland, Dr. Mitchell Reiss; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4595/04]
View answer
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:17 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his schedule and priorities for his visit to the United States around St. Patrick's Day; if he will be meeting US President, Mr. George Bush; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4637/04]
View answerOral answers (27 contributions)
I propose to take Questions 8 to 17, inclusive, together.
The programme for my visit to Washington for St. Patrick's Day has yet to be finalised. However, I expect to arrive in Washington on Tuesday, 16 March and attend the gala dinner of the American Ireland Fund that evening. On Wednesday, St. Patrick's Day, I expect to participate in the traditional ceremonies at the White House and on Capitol Hill. I will depart Washington for the EU-Canada summit in Ottawa on Thursday, 18 March.
I have invited the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board to visit Ireland this year. A programme is currently being developed for a visit scheduled for September. As usual, I keep in touch with members of the advisory board as the need arises and meet them on their visits here when possible. I met Ambassador Richard Haass's successor, Dr. Mitchell Reiss, President Bush's policy adviser on Northern Ireland, on Wednesday, 4 February and briefed him on my recent contacts and on the review. Dr. Reiss also met the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and had meetings in Belfast and London in the course of his visit.
Have arrangements been finalised for a visit by the US President to Ireland? There have been reports that he is due to visit some time in May or June. If that happens, does the Taoiseach consider that transatlantic relationships between the EU and North America might be something that Ireland could lead on during its Presidency, given that the EU and United States are our most important trading partners for goods and services? There are serious differences of opinion between elements in Europe and the United States regarding the war on Iraq, GM foods, changes in the International Criminal Court and other matters which have caused great tension between the European Union and the United States.
Deputy Gay Mitchell launched a document proposing a transatlantic foundation which could be sited in Ireland. Will the Taoiseach give consideration to that kind of concept or proposal, which would go a long way to healing the rift that exists between the European Union and the United States in several areas? Will he take the opportunity to discuss that matter with the US President when he comes here?
The visit is in the context of a European Union-US summit, and the entire agenda will consist of EU business. Possible dates and locations are being considered, but no more than that. However, it is intended that the summit take place in Ireland, either in the second half of May or, more likely, in June. I hope to try to finalise that during the visit to Washington on St. Patrick's Day, if not before.
Deputy Kenny is right that it is important to move on from the difficulties of last year, and we can play a constructive role. In the autumn, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, put forward a paper on the constructive role that we could play in the EU context in trying to improve relationships. It was very well received by the General Affairs Council. There are two aspects to it, the first being trying to look at issues where we believe that the European Union and the United States do not have conflicting roles and on which we can co-operate, for example, concerning the Middle East road map, UN policy on Iraq, the ongoing difficulties in Syria and Iran, the Korean problem, and the peacekeeping role that the UN can play and how the US can feed into that. Those are areas where there are no differences with the EU. We have put forward a coherent argument in those cases.
The second part is that raised by Deputy Kenny — the ability to build up trade and continue trying to get back to the next round of the WTO talks. We are a considerable trading nation, but the relationship with the US is of enormous importance for the whole of Europe. I will examine what Deputy Gay Mitchell has said, but from an article I read, I believe it concerned international trade and areas which we should centralise. Those are pertinent areas with which I agree, since there is huge capacity for trade. The United States' current position shows it striving ahead and there are arguments as to whether that is sustainable. There are many opportunities for Europe, and we will be addressing that at the spring Council.
At the Taoiseach's meeting with President Bush, either in Washington or when the President comes here for the EU-US summit, will he take the opportunity to get more accurate information regarding what knowledge was available from UN weapons inspectors before the Iraq war regarding weapons of mass destruction, which seems to have been far more accurate than information from western intelligence sources, either in the US or Britain? Was the Government given information, from either the British or US Governments, about the extent or otherwise of these weapons in Iraq?
Has any information been made available to the Taoiseach in his capacity as President of the European Union that, for instance, drug production in Afghanistan has risen by practically 1,000%? Most of that finds its way onto the streets of Europe, and something should be done about it. The Taliban are gone — the invasion dealt with that — but the consequences appear to be horrendous in social problems, extortion and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of young European lives as a consequence of the drug trade and production capacity having escalated seriously. Will the Taoiseach take up those matters with President Bush when he meets him?
The second issue was very important, but I will first reply on the question regarding weapons of mass destruction. Whatever happened in the end, Deputy Kenny has raised an important matter. Our approach to the issue and all that we said at the time in support of the UN line in the months leading up to the war, right back to 2002, was based on Security Council resolutions dating from 1991, in which the Security Council stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That had never been denied, but now it is proper to say that they were never there. That was not the case, however, and in all those resolutions the Security Council was absolutely satisfied of the position. When Security Council Resolution 1441 was adopted, the Security Council was acting in the belief that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction, and that belief was widely shared in the international community. The General Affairs Council, when it met in November 2002, could not have been more clear when it stated its belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. That was in spite of there being disagreement among member states about how to deal with the situation. However, there was no argument about whether there were weapons.
In the report — one of the last — issued to the Security Council in March 2003, Dr. Blix, who was the head of UNMOVIC, said that the arms inspection team mandated to investigate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had said that many questions relating to them remained unanswered. He had spent the previous seven months trying to get those answers. Regardless of whether those weapons still existed when he made that statement or when the war was about to start, Iraq was in material breach of its disarmament obligations to Dr. Blix and his colleagues and had failed to co-operate fully with the arms inspectors carrying out their mandate to verify that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction.
The Irish position on Iraq remains one of support for the role of the UN. We will continue in our work, and not a week goes by without our having contact with Secretary General Annan regarding his efforts to maximise, within the existing political and physical constraints, the role and activities of the United Nations in Iraq. During our Presidency we will continue to support efforts aimed at reaching an international consensus and a way forward.
On the Deputy's second question, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will be in Afghanistan this week as part of the Presidency. I have read the prepared documents and, regardless of the percentages, which I cannot recall, the Deputy is correct. The only policy of the Taliban which I regarded as useful was their anti-drugs policy. Last year, the growing of opium crops recommenced and has reached an all-time high. There is no doubt that these crops will turn into drugs on our streets, as happened last year, and quantities are bound to increase around the world. The Minister will raise that issue.
It is no good for me or the Deputy to state in the House that the growing of such crops should stop. A way must be found to help the people involved or subsidise them to grow other crops. From what I have read recently, they do not get much money from them. The world community, if it really wants to stop the trade, and everybody agrees we do, must find a way of giving them aid and assistance to get them to move to alternative ways of making a living. The people involved live among bushes and rocks so they do not make much money out of their crops; others do.
This is an enormously important issue and I am sure the Minister will report to the House on his meetings this week in Afghanistan, where he will have an opportunity to meet Mr. Karzai and others. I know they are trying but I understand that their powers are still limited to Kabul and they have not managed to regain much ground in the hinterlands to which many of the warlords have returned. We will receive a report on this major issue.
Will the Taoiseach discuss electronic voting with President Bush?
He would not be in favour of electronic voting. He would, however, favour the machine version which would probably receive support in the House.
Would it not be a good idea to have an international representative on the panel of experts to be established by the Taoiseach? If Jeb Bush is available, he may agree to chair it.
He would have to obtain a work permit.
We could arrange one for him. On the serious question Deputy Kenny raises, is it not the case that relations between the European Union and the United States have been damaged as a result of the Iraq adventure and that, arising from that war, the world is now a less safe place, anti-Americanism is being fuelled and Iraq now has a domestic terrorist dimension it did not have previously?
What is the point in raising again the question of whether there were weapons of mass destruction at the time war was declared? Even President Bush admits the intelligence was faulty. In those circumstances, would it not be appropriate, during the St. Patrick's Day discussions, for the Taoiseach, whether in his capacity as leader of the Government or as President of the European Union, to register the serious disquiet in this and other democracies, including Mr. Blair's, about the Iraq adventure, and that this point be made to Mr. Bush, on behalf of a friendly country and a friendly European Union, by somebody such as the Taoiseach who continues to state that his position and that of his Government was anti-war?
I have no difficulty agreeing with Deputy Rabbitte that the point should be made. Whatever about the situation earlier, the situation in the end was that the information was not good. That is the reason Britain has responded and, to reply to the Deputy's question on America, the Bush Administration has decided to create an independent commission.
Last spring, towards the end of the war, I had an opportunity in Hillsborough to make the point that there was enormous concern in Europe and people were unhappy that the UN position was not followed through. The Irish position, which was to stick with the UN, was not adopted and people moved on and did not seek a further resolution. I believed then that this was regrettable and that position has not changed.
As I stated previously in the House, I will ask about the information. Last March, on St. Patrick's Day, the Americans were convinced, as was Prime Minister Blair, that they were right on this issue but events proved that this was not the case. I will make those points because I think they are important. I will also make the point that, the more I deal with EU business, the more I see that, if the Americans were to engage more intensely in the Middle East, it would be a huge factor in stabilising the situation. I am not sure why everyone cannot see this because the problem feeds into so many other difficulties. The Middle East is not just Palestine but all the other areas in the region.
I do not accept the argument that the Middle East can be ignored because it is election year in America. Not everyone in America is tied up in the election and I do not accept that as an excuse, even though I keep hearing it. I have had the opportunity of meeting the Israeli Foreign Minister and will meet him again next week when I will make the point that it is not in the interests of Israel, Palestine or anywhere else that the current position continue.
The fundamental question on Iraq, which we have been stating in recent days to Colin Powell and others, is how to transfer power to a sovereign Iraqi Government at a time when the country is torn by violence by the main factions, the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds. There is so much disagreement on the way forward. The kind of death toll we have seen in the past week and the violence between the factions and against the Americans cannot continue.
The US has been pressing for the UN to carry out its electoral mission and there is a sense of relief everywhere, including in the US Administration, that this has now been agreed. That Administration is anxious to get UN involvement and it is important that we see more of it. Otherwise the major difficulties and the many killings will not be resolved. It is far better that the UN will become more involved but we need to see the transfer of power. The difficulty is that this is not easy because there is total disagreement between the main factions.
In respect of Northern Ireland, will the Taoiseach indicate the tenor of the matters he will raise with President Bush and whether he believes there may be a positive outcome of the new emphasis on fighting terrorism in the United States? Does he believe the American Administration is likely to be a helpful influence in dealing with the outstanding disarmament question in Northern Ireland?
Normally the St. Patrick's Day visit and meetings are focused almost entirely on Northern Ireland. This will be slightly different this year because of the EU business but the main focus will continue to be on Northern Ireland issues. Obviously, they will include an update on the work on the review and the position papers arising from it.
Having dealt with Northern Ireland for so many years, the last thing I would ever want to be is simplistic on the issue. For the first time in many years the solution is straightforward. I remember the time when there were 72 items on the agenda for meetings with the then Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, and we used to wonder how we would get through them. It is now fairly clear. Whatever happens in the process review if we get to a position where there is a total cessation of all paramilitary activities on one side — that is spelled out in detail and contained in one paragraph — then I believe there is a compelling case for everybody, including the Democratic Unionist Party, to move on with power sharing in the institutions, principles of consent and so on. The more I look at it the more I believe that is what it is down to. Equally if that is not done, I do not see how it can be resolved.
For the first time in a long time it is a clear-cut position. If we see that everybody is determined to see the end of paramilitarism and everybody is determination to achieve that, and we are as near to it as we have ever been, then there is a compelling responsibility on everybody, including the DUP, because it has been reluctant for some time, to move to share real power under the full basis of the Good Friday Agreement. The logic of that position then is that the British and Irish Governments will have to implement all their further responsibilities. That is the position and it is the clearest position we have been at to date. I hope we will see that before we get into the end of the review, before the marching season and back into all the difficulties again. I will continue to emphasise that point as clearly as I can.
I am glad to hear the Taoiseach will be discussing Northern Ireland at some length. On 4 February, the Taoiseach informed the House that he would raise with President Bush the matter of being misled on issues surrounding the war, in particular, on the issue of the weapons of mass destruction. He stated that he recalled what President Bush told him last year and he remembered in particular what Vice-President Cheney said. Will the Taoiseach enlighten the House as to what he was told by President Bush and Vice-President Cheney on that occasion? Will he say if it influenced him to make Shannon Airport available to over 100,000 US troops en route to the war zone? In light of the fact that the Taoiseach says he was misled, as we all were, will he tell President Bush that the US military can no longer use Shannon Airport, given that the situation has changed?
Will the Taoiseach raise the issue of Guantanamo Bay with President Bush, seeing that the issue of the human rights of 660 individuals from 40 countries being held there illegally has been raised by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the Pope, a British law lord and the International Red Cross? Will that issue be on the agenda?
In an article written by the Taoiseach last year on his return from his St. Patrick's Day visit to the White House, he stated that whether military action in Iraq was justified would be determined only in light of results achieved and costs incurred. An estimated 100,000 Iraqis and 600 US and UK soldiers are dead and there has been considerable disruption and hardship because of the lack of stability. Hospitals are unable to cope and there is no telephone or postal service. Does the Taoiseach now believe that the war was justified and can he now justify the use of Shannon Airport to facilitate that war?
Since I said that, both the President and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, have set up an independent commission to inquire into pre-war intelligence and all these matters will be investigated. The intelligence was believed to be correct but they do not believe so now. The investigations have been set up and time will tell.
I believe all war and violence of every kind is wrong. The innocent and those who are the least involved suffer in war. I am now more interested in the UN.
Deputy Sargent does not understand too well and I will remind him that if we had not allowed Shannon Airport the soldiers would have travelled on to Germany, the great leader of the anti-war campaign. The Deputy's question is a nonsense and he knows it.
Will the Taoiseach say why he insists on continuing in this Dáil the charade that has been going on for 18 months? Does the Taoiseach not understand well that the world knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that this was an excuse to invade on foot of the imperial ambitions of the United States and Britain? I ask the Taoiseach to come clean on this matter. Before the Taoiseach goes to Washington does he not regard it as important to clarify the information he was given by the President of the United States? Has the Taoiseach protested to him or to any representative of the Administration, about the fraudulent information they gave him about weapons of mass destruction? Due to the fact that the Taoiseach purported to believe the President, he gave substantial logistical support to an invasion that resulted in the slaughter of thousands of people. Does the Taoiseach resent that in any way? Can the Taoiseach understand why I am puzzled about the equanimity with which he now accepts the truth of the matter that most of us knew for a long time?
When the Taoiseach arrives in Washington in March, clutching his bowl of shamrock, will he look for a public apology from the President of the United States for having conned him into being an accessory to his murderous invasion of Iraq? Will the Taoiseach justify why Mr. Bush should be allowed to use a visit to this country to boost his re-election campaign? In view of what has happened, will the Taoiseach tell him that a large majority of the Irish people have been revolted by his murderous invasion of Iraq and reject it? Perhaps the only place he will be safe from mass protests is on the top of Carrantuohill. Will the Taoiseach say where he will bring the President of the United States if he brings him to this country?
Will it be up the Hag's Glen?
That is another plug for Kerry tourism.
I have already said that the matters of last year are subject to independent commissions both in the United States and in Britain and I will not try to resolve them during Leaders' Questions. I have listened to Deputy Higgins over the past 18 months. I have never yet heard him say, and it would be useful if he did, that he accepts the Security Council resolutions of the last ten years that Iraq held the most severe and sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. That view was held by the Security Council up to 19 November 2002. Obviously Deputy Higgins could be proved correct and that his party's intelligence was better than those of the Prime Minister or President Bush.
That would not be hard.
I am prepared to accept that his party's intelligence was probably better in the remaining months.
The Taoiseach should not praise the Deputy too much.
However, the Deputy should concede in the first case that there were weapons.
On the second point, the Deputy should at all times realise that those people and countries who are anti-war gave total support in the form of facilities and logistics and that includes France and Germany in particular, and several other anti-war countries. Deputy Higgins is wrong to confuse the issues about the use of Shannon Airport or any of the other bases or logistical help given. Germany gave significant assistance. The Deputy should take the opportunity to correct that. I do not agree with Deputy Higgins's view that we should act in a hostile way to the people of the United States——
I did not say that. Excuse me.
——as represented by their President. He should not talk about mass protests and antagonism when people come to this country for a summit during our Presidency of the EU. This country's close relationship with the United States has been built up over 150 years. We derive significant benefits from it for our people who work in the United States and in this country. It does no good to anybody in this House to be ranting an old antagonistic doctrine of senseless proportions.
Given that the efforts of the US and British Governments to deceive their people and the international community by making allegations about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been exposed, and bearing in mind that both Governments have been forced to establish inquiries into the so-called intelligence they peddled, does the Taoiseach regret that he took at face value the information that those two Governments proffered? He has already stated that he intends to raise the matter with President Bush, but in what terms will he raise the point I have made and the other points made this morning? I would like to know exactly how the Taoiseach intends to present it to President Bush. Does the Taoiseach accept, as many people clearly do, that the invasion of Iraq concerned regime change and control?
Nobody has missed the kernel of the responses the Taoiseach has given in the past to this set of questions. Does he still hold to the view that the Government should not strongly oppose the US and British-led invasion and occupation of Iraq and does he continue to believe that we should abandon positive neutrality and independent foreign policy on the grounds that it might offend the Bush Administration?
I have already answered some of the questions asked by Deputy Ó Caoláin. While I do not suggest that the Deputy has made such an argument, some people hold the view, based on what the Americans and British said at the end about their intelligence, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but that is not the position. I have supported the UN throughout my political life. I supported the UN's and Dr. Blix's understanding of this matter. That is where we were throughout this issue. Our position on Iraq remains one of support for the UN.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked me a fair question about what I intend to say to the President of the United States. I will state the Irish position and the EU position in respect of what we need to do now, which is the central issue. President Bush knows, because I told him at Hillsborough last year, that my position about what happened is that it would have been far better if everything had been done under a UN mandate. The UN must be at the heart of the reconstruction of Iraq if it is to be successful. The UN has the experience, capacity and perceived neutrality to carry out such a task in an objective way. We should support the efforts of the UN Secretary General, Mr. Annan, to maximise, within the existing political and physical constraints, the role and activities of the United Nations in Iraq. That must be accepted.
There must be full support for the decision to send a team to assess the feasibility of holding elections in Iraq. We hope that this process will attract the support of all the parties. We will say this to the US President. We look forward to hearing the outcome of that mission.
During our Presidency, we will continue to support efforts aimed at reaching an international consensus on the way forward. In its role as holders of the EU Presidency, Ireland is pleased to join the US and other donors as part of the Iraq reconstruction core group. We will have a valuable opportunity to work closely with other donors to ensure that the reconstruction efforts in Iraq are successful.
We must examine how we can deal with the terrible issues that exist in the aftermath of the war. The lesson to be learnt, which the UN has proved many times, is that it would have been better if it had happened under a UN mandate and if people had taken their time. We have argued throughout that the UN has to be central, for example in the reconstruction process for the future.