Vol. 542 No. 2
99 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers In Luxembourg on 8 October 2001 and its consideration of air and missile strikes by the United States and Britain against Afghanistan; and if he will clarify comments later attributed to him stating that the Government would support similar attacks on other countries. [24049/01]
The General Affairs Council, which met in Luxembourg on 8 October 2001, declared its full solidarity with the United States and wholehearted support for the action being taken in self-defence and in conformity with the UN Charter and UN Resolution 1368. The Council stressed that the carefully targeted action launched on 7 October was not an attack on Islam nor the people of Afghanistan, whom the European Union is determined to support and sustain.
I presume the second part of the Deputy's question refers to a story in The Examiner of 9 October which reported my response to a question as to whether the United States had the right to take military action against additional countries which it had identified as harbouring terrorists who had attacked it. I replied that, according to the circumstances, the United States had the right to take targeted and proportionate action either under its inherent right to self-defence or under Resolution 1368, providing it had the necessary evidence of that state's involvement in terrorist activity directed against it.
That said, I very much hope the United States will not find it necessary to undertake military action beyond the targeted action under way in the areas of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban regime. The Government is firmly of the view that military action should be undertaken only as a last resort after all other means of persuasion have been exhausted. Regrettably, military action against the Taliban was the consequence of its sustained refusal to respond to the demands of the international community, even in the face of UN sanctions, to hand over Osama bin Laden and close the terrorist camps operating from within the territory under its control. The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, emphasised to me on 7 October that the US and its allies were targeting AI Qaeda camps and Taliban military installations. The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, conveyed a similar message to EU Foreign Ministers at our meeting in Luxembourg on 8 October. I am not aware of any evidence which demonstrates that other States were knowingly involved in harbouring those who planned or executed the 11 September atrocities. It has not been mentioned in my contacts with the US or its military allies, that other possible targets for military action are under active consideration.
I referred in the second part of my question to the report in The Irish Times as well as to the report in The Examiner in which there is a clear difference between what the Minister has just said and what, for example, Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, has said. Does the Minister think it is a reasonable interpretation of resolution 1368 that the United States could interpret any threat in any State and under the purposes of this resolution, take action such as it has taken already in Afghanistan?
When the Minister speaks about the conditions attached to 1368 which refer to proportionality – bringing to justice and the security of civilians – what information has he got most recently on the position of civilians, seeing that there are now 1.2 million more refugees than there were there originally and to which he has referred in a previous response?
I note the Minister's colleague, the "Minister for Aid" is here. Does the Minister not feel that the international humanitarian relief and development aid effort has been almost irrevocably damaged by the militarisation of the aid programme – the suggestion that one can drop rations from the sky behind the line of advance of the Northern Alliance while at the same time the Taliban, through the closing of the borders, has impeded the world relief programme which cannot adequately distribute food?
In answer to the first question: I have the transcript of that interview in Luxembourg and the question asked was:
If the United States were to go about its military campaign beyond Afghanistan, would you continue to support it?
The answer was:
Well obviously, as I say, what is required here is the exercise of self-defence and the question of the identification of the threat is a very important issue. As of now, the threat has been identified in respect of Al Quaeda and other groups being harboured by Taliban. If there was evidence to suggest that other regimes were harbouring these terrorists or training them, then clearly that is another situation that arises, so at the moment we are dealing with the situation as is.
That is my answer to the question. The reason I say that is simply this: it is the hypothesis of what would happen if there were a country "B" involved. In international law, the international threat to peace and security has been identified as the events of 11 September. The inherent right to self defence is available to any country against whom a threat or a continuing threat is posed. If country "B"– and this is a hypothesis at this stage – were involved in harbouring the same terrorists who were responsible for the events of 11 September, then clearly the same legal principles apply. I went no further than that; that is not an advocacy of a position; it is simply a frank reply to a question.
I was asked in what circumstances do the legal principles apply to other countries if any. They would only apply in the same circumstances and the same circumstances would have to be a regime which is harbouring these terrorists, allowing its territory to be used for training camps and is posing a continuing threat. There is no more nor less involved in that reply. It is a logical, rational reply in the situation and consistent with international legal principles.
The political reality we are dealing with at the moment is that there is no evidence of any imminent attack on any other country or regime other than the Taliban regime and the Al Quaeda network. That is the situation as things stand today.
I will speak about the food programme and perhaps the Deputy can remind me of what the second supplementary question was. The UN has provided assistance to the poor people of Afghanistan for more than 12 years, since 1988. It would be far better if this were done in the absence of military action and military action would not be required if we were dealing with a regime that complied with Security Council resolutions 1269, 1333, 1368 and 1373. Rather than jumping to the third step, if it was a regime with any concern for the needs of its own people, it would not harbour terrorists and international law would be able to deal with them. I still appeal to the Taliban regime to allow more humanitarian relief for the internally displaced people and the many millions of vulnerable people who will suffer even greater hardships unless this matter is resolved one way or the other.
The distinction between Jack Straw and the Minister.
I think I have answered that question.
Very briefly, Deputy, the time is up.
What measures are now being considered to comply with those principles of diplomacy that suggest that bringing to justice includes the handing over of those responsible to an international court? Has the Minister considered that the extension of 136 is not contained in 1368? Even a State's action on the basis of simple perception of a terrorist threat is not catered for in 1368. If one took such action as threatened—
The Deputy must finish. I call the Minister for a brief reply.
The reply on the right to self defence which is inherent under the Charter means that it is available to any State under a continuing threat from any source. It is only limited in respect of those places where one can identify the continuing threat in respect of the terrorist attacks of 11 September. In relation to article—
We must deal with the next question now.
On the question of handing over – resolution 1333 – they have demanded that the Taliban comply with resolution 1267 of 1999 and in particular, cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organisations, take appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under its control is not used for terrorist installations and camps and for the preparation or organisation of terrorist attacks against other States or other citizens, and co-operate with international efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice. The only response we have from the regime to those Security Council resolutions was the events of 11 September.
