Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Feb 2003

Vol. 561 No. 4

European Council Meeting: Statements.

The Taoiseach:

Before I address in detail the proceedings of last night's European Council, I wish to say a few words about the general situation regarding Iraq. We are at a defining moment in international relations. Events in coming months will have an important impact on world security for years and possibly decades to come. A united approach by the United Nations which results in the full implementation of UN resolutions on Iraq will be a signal that a multilateral approach to world security is both viable and effective. A result that sees the United Nations marginalised or its resolutions flouted can only signal a move to a more dangerous world environment. As the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said last night:

What has happened in Iraq, or what happens in Iraq will not happen in a vacuum. The broader our consensus on Iraq, the better the chance we can come together again as an international community and deal effectively with all the burning conflicts in the world. And that is extremely important because when you look around you, we have many many difficult issues to tackle.

Ireland's approach from the beginning has been based on the need to respect the role of the United Nations and international law. As a member of the Security Council, we played a key role in building the unanimous support for Resolution 1441. As one of the world's smaller and militarily neutral countries, Ireland has a vital national interest in a world order based on the rule of law and the primacy of the United Nations. We are proud of our tradition of support for the UN and the Government has no intention of departing from that. It is incumbent on all in the House to deal with this issue in a calm and responsible manner. Failure to do so can only have negative repercussions for the national interest.

I attended the extraordinary meeting of the European Council held in Brussels yesterday evening. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, also attended. The conclusions agreed by the European Council have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, addressed the meeting and made forceful and constructive interventions. The European Council meeting was very productive and I congratulate the Greek Presidency for the constructive efforts it made. The meeting demonstrated the broad range of agreement among the members of the European Council, despite the continuance of differences on timing which still have to be resolved. I am happy to say that Ireland made a significant contribution to the shaping of the agreement arrived at last night. I am pleased with the level of consensus reflected in the conclusions of the meeting.

The clear outcome of this meeting was to state again the European Union objective of full and effective Iraqi disarmament and the desire to achieve this peacefully. The Government's position, set out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Dáil last Tuesday, is that inspections should continue for as long as the inspectors feel they are productive but that they cannot continue indefinitely in the face of Iraqi non-compliance. A united approach in the Security Council and in the European Union is most likely to succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with his obligations. Only full compliance with his obligations can secure the peaceful resolution of this crisis.

The members of the European Council in their deliberations yesterday took full account of the deep public concerns about the possibility of conflict. Every European Union Government is anxious to avoid war. This is the reason we want to see the disarmament of Iraq achieved through exclusively peaceful means, in accordance with Resolution 1441. This is also the reason we are putting so much pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply. The build-up of military force is part of that pressure. War can still be avoided. Resolution 1441 and the credible threat of force which underpins it have resulted in progress. The return of UN inspectors to Iraq after four years is a sign of progress. Saddam Hussein still has a chance to comply with the demands of the Security Council. He should do so promptly and unequivocally.

This is the third occasion in four weeks that the House has considered Iraq. It is right that we should devote considerable time to this issue. There is a great deal at stake, not least the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations. Ireland has worked long and hard to achieve a peaceful solution to this crisis as we have worked for peaceful solutions to other crises over the years. The thrust of the United Nations Charter, which we fully support, is to find peaceful solutions. Force should only be used when all other possible means have been tried and failed.

Ireland has been to the fore in the United Nations from the outset of our membership in working towards preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This current crisis therefore touches on two fundamental areas of concern to us. At the meeting yesterday, we also agreed on the need to address the increasing dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq has refused to comply with UN resolutions for more than decade. In addition to the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council from 1990, Resolution 1284 of 1999 called on Iraq to allow UN inspectors "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transport". Iraq has repeatedly failed to comply with resolutions of the Security Council and to live up to its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations.

Resolution 1441 of last October was designed to give Iraq another chance. It stated that Iraq should provide the arms inspectors with unconditional access to sites and persons. It directed the heads of the arms inspection teams to report immediately any interference or failure to comply.

A number of speakers, including Kofi Annan, pointed out yesterday that there was a great degree of pessimism in the run-up to the adoption of Resolution 1441. Nonetheless, persistence, co-operation and a spirit of compromise enabled the Security Council to agree that resolution unanimously.

After lengthy and intensive debate, in which Ireland as a member of the Security Council took an active and constructive part, agreement was reached on Resolution 1441 on 8 November. This left the issue firmly within the framework of the United Nations Security Council. This is where Ireland wants to see the issue dealt with and where further decisions should be taken. We continue to believe that Resolution 1441 offers the best prospect of achieving our three principal objectives. These objectives are to obtain Iraq's voluntary compliance with its disarmament obligations, to avoid a military conflict and to uphold the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Above all we must preserve the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. Ireland has always been a fully committed supporter of the system of collective security, with the United Nations and the Security Council at its very centre. European Union leaders last night pledged their full support to the Security Council in the discharge of its responsibilities. It is now up to Iraq to discharge its obligation under Article 25 of the Charter whereby all UN members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

Kofi Annan said last night:

If the Security Council manages to resolve this crisis successfully and effectively, its credibility and influence will be considerably enhanced. If, on the other hand, the international community fails to agree a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Council, then the legitimacy of and support for that action will be seriously impaired.

I agree with that assessment. This is why the Government has consistently spoken out and used its influence at every opportunity, in every forum and in all its meetings, including at yesterday's meetings in Brussels, to urge the need for a peaceful solution. We have insisted that all means short of force must be tried and that force may be used only as a very last resort. We have repeatedly warned of the dangers, which would inevitably result from military conflict, and we have called attention to the threat of large-scale loss of life, casualties and human suffering. We have pointed to the risk that conflict could destabilise a region, which is already volatile. We have pointed out that extremists and terrorists would seek to exploit growing tensions between the Muslim world and Europe and the United States. We have spoken of the possible disruption of economic growth. We have laid particular emphasis on humanitarian concerns, as Ireland always has in such circumstances.

It is our strong view that the inspections should continue as long as the inspectors and the Security Council consider they serve a useful purpose. At the same time, like the Secretary General, we recognise that the inspections cannot continue forever. Ireland has repeatedly stated its view that if Iraq continues with non-compliance, the Security Council will have to assume its responsibilities as provided for in Resolution 1441. Any action to be taken to bring about full compliance should be decided in a second Security Council resolution. The arguments as to whether a second resolution is a legal necessity are a distraction from the real point. The compelling political reality is that a second resolution will signal the unity and resolve of the international community and the clear legitimacy of any subsequent military action.

On the basis of the inspectors' report to the Security Council last Friday, the Government believes that the inspectors should continue their work, but continued and real compliance by Iraq with UN resolutions is essential. The ball is again in the court of the Iraqi leadership. That is and will continue to be Ireland's position.

The European Council yesterday discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We agreed on the need to invigorate the peace process in the Middle East and to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The road map agreed by the Quartet, consisting of the European Union, the United States, the United Nations and Russia, should be implemented rapidly.

Last night's meeting was a step in the right direction. It will, I hope, enable the European Union and the international community to unite around our common objective, a peaceful solution based on the primacy of the United Nations.

Mr. Kenny:

I am both pleased and relieved to note the summit was a success. To achieve cohesion and unity of purpose among 15 member states was necessary and desirable. An achievement, though overdue, is better late than never. That said, as the leader of a party that has always believed passionately in the European project, I regret that such cohesion could not have been reached some time ago. In particular, this should have happened before Europe divided along the political fault line called unilateral action and before the diplomatic fiasco involving eight European countries so that the emergence of the tags "Europe old and new" could have been avoided.

To maintain cohesion in this matter, I call on the Greek Presidency to continue to monitor developments closely and to maintain regular contact with the member states as events unfold. Serious consideration should be given to convening further special summit meetings if major developments occur in relation to Iraq. Only through such close co-operation and communication can we maintain a common European voice in this crisis.

This party has been working for some time on revising its political proposition, based on principle, not expediency. It is based on new politics, for a new people, for a new time. Our view clearly extends to Europe in this instance. The old order is indeed changing. We must leave NATO politics firmly where it belongs, in the last century. Com mitted Europeans, from the Balkans to the Atlantic, are looking beyond the structures of the Cold War to create a new security architecture, based not on isolation and fear, but on cohesion, trust and hope. Such a security architecture will carry and indeed amplify Europe's voice in world affairs, particularly in international conflict resolution.

The Taoiseach is an exasperating politician. No matter how hard he has been pressed in the past three weeks, he has gone close to the wire, but he never gives the final answer. Perhaps this is a hallmark of his politics and style, but in his contribution today he has answered one half of the equation fully. Neither he nor the Minister for Foreign Affairs is a warmonger. He supports peace and has made a vigorous contribution towards that. He supports the primacy and legitimacy of the United Nations. On behalf of Ireland, he pursues a resolution of this conflict through exclusively peaceful means. He agrees with Kofi Annan when he said:

If the Security Council manages to resolve this crisis successfully and effectively, its credibility and influence will be considerably enhanced. If, on the other hand, the international community fails to agree a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Council, then the legitimacy of and support for that action will be seriously impaired."

Yet, he will not go the final step and say that he is opposed to unilateral action against Iraq.

I understand the pressure of being Taoiseach and a member of Government. The people, including many who marched last week, are deeply opposed to war, but are naturally concerned about the economic consequences of what could happen here. People have expressed to me very directly their views on the effects on economic investment in this country from the United States. This is real and means cheques at weekends, houses, mortgages, families, cars, lifestyles, work and the future.

We have always been friends with the United States. We have long historical, social, economic, political and other ties with that country. However we are a sovereign people with our own Constitution and laws. Just as we respect the laws and regulations of other countries, so should they too respect ours. Friends sometimes differ. Our traditional stance has always been, as enunciated by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to respect and adhere to the primacy, legitimacy and authority of the United Nations, and the Taoiseach has stated today he has no intention of departing from that tradition. Perhaps when the Minister for Foreign Affairs is answering questions on this later, he will say where Ireland would stand in the context of, for example, a second resolution not conferring a mandate for unilateral action. I know this is a difficult question.

What the Taoiseach's failure to answer ques tions at the summit exposes is that under his leadership the Fianna Fáil Party has made the politics of the parish pump into an art, but is still joining the dots in respect of the European picture and beyond. The Economist on-line has a map of Europe on which one can click a dot over each country to find out how it is aligned. There is no dot over Ireland, meaning we do not have a position on a war which has the potential to change the world and instead confine ourselves to expressing support for the United Nations, although I accept this is important as in so doing we adhere to our traditional values.

Mr. Cowen:

Does The Economist on-line have a pro-UN position which one can click?

Mr. Kenny:

Perhaps the dot I clicked does not work.

Mr. Cowen:

The point I am making is that it is better not to take a position on either side of the debate without first referring to the United Nations.

Mr. Kenny:

We remain, in our Celtic mists and not so splendid isolation, a complete mystery to the world.

Mr. Cowen:

That was not the case yesterday.

Mr. Kenny:

Having listened to what the President of the European Parliament said about the Taoiseach last night, it is difficult to know what, other than complimentary remarks, was said at the meeting.

Mr. Roche:

They were unreserved compliments.

Mr. Cowen:

Similar remarks were made by the Deputy's partners in the Christian democratic group.

Mr. Kenny:

The European People's Party.

The Taoiseach:

The Deputy's social and political partners thanked us last night.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Kenny, without interruption. If the Deputy addressed his remarks through the Chair, he would not invite interruption.

Mr. Kenny:

Given his support for the United Nations and exclusively peaceful means, I would have expected the Taoiseach, as leader of the Government, to make a clear statement that we are opposed to unilateral action.

I spoke to Ms Quinn from UNICEF the other day. As Members will be aware, she has just returned from an eight day visit to Iraq. The humanitarian consequences of a war are frightening. UNICEF has enough food stashed on the Syrian border to feed 600,000 people within 48 hours and has a warehouse in Baghdad with food valued at $1 million.

The regime in Iraq has been brutal. Layer by layer, the people have been stripped of everything to the point where they are unable to resist or rise up. I share the Government's view that if Saddam Hussein was to comply with the UN resolution, the conflict would be avoided.

I received an e-mail from San Diego a couple of days ago by a person who has watched from a hillside as aircraft carriers have steamed out of the bay for the past six months. These vessels will not return without having done some damage, which clearly indicates the strength of the commitment of the United States on this issue. Newspaper reports noting that a replacement for Saddam Hussein is ready to take power in Iraq and setting out a catalogue of events which will happen between now and the end of March call into question the value and importance of the Security Council's decision.

Ireland could take a lead in examining the sanctions committee, which refuses to approve certain parts for medical equipment for importation to Iraq if it deems them to be of dual use. Presuming the mortality rate among young children in hospitals in Iraq is as high as we are informed, a series of Irish and European sponsored humanitarian visits to Iraq should be undertaken to ensure medicines reach hospitals there and can be used to benefit the country's children who are suffering from diarrhoea, malnutrition and other illnesses on a massive scale. Replies to questions I tabled to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the past indicated that the Iraqi Government has not ordered medicines under the food for oil programme.

We should explain to the Iraqi people that not all western countries are belligerent and that we want them to have the opportunity to live normal lives. Given that the Parc Group trained and worked with doctors and nurses in the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad prior to the Gulf War, there is already a connection between Ireland and Iraq, about which I understand the Iraqi people are aware. I ask the Taoiseach to take the next available opportunity to examine what medical equipment the sanctions committee has prevented from reaching Iraq.

Available evidence suggests that if this conflict starts, as many as 16 million people will suffer severely from lack of nutrition and food caused by the ravages of war. As a country which has traditionally taken a neutral stance, it behoves us to be far more vigorous and proactive in terms of our approach to this issue. We should clearly state our views.

No one in the House supports Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq do not support his regime, which rules by oppression. The collective will of the international community can and will be brought to bear on what is, possibly, a worsening situation. War is always the option of last resort. The decision facing us is whether it would save lives and reduce suffering. While there is no easy answer, principle can be a useful guide.

In recent days I have spoken to people in the United States where security has been ratcheted up to close to the top of the scale and people across the country are buying gas masks and stocking up on water and tinned food. One has the distinct impression of a people living under a cloud of fear. Whether it is justified remains to be seen, but the threat of international terrorism is very real.

The Taoiseach:

The attacks on 11 September were very real. That is how Americans see the matter.

Mr. Kenny:

One also has the report on Sellafield commissioned by Greenpeace, which, it appears, will not be published because of the catastrophic consequences of an attack. Perhaps the build-up of military forces in the Gulf will ultimately have a deterrent effect in that Saddam Hussein may decide to comply with UN resolutions. However, the rising weather temperatures in the Gulf make matters uncertain. If, at the end of another period, Mr. Blix is able to report that the Iraqi regime is co-operating and complying with the requirements of the weapons inspectors and inspections should, therefore, continue, it would be too hot for, or, as they say in the United States, not conducive to night fighting in the desert. The question is whether the White House would decide to take unilateral action at that point.

I want to find out where the Government stands in the event that the United States decides to invade Iraq unilaterally without United Nations sanction. Will the Taoiseach tell the people where he stands and what the Cabinet has decided or will we have to wait until the final moment?

Mr. Rabbitte:

The 100,000 people who marched through Dublin last Saturday were not marching in support of Saddam Hussein or out of antipathy to America. I was in the march and I spoke to many people. These were people who in many cases had never marched in their lives before and had never felt the overwhelming urge to protest about an international issue. They were members of all political parties and none. They were people of all ages, classes and income groups. They were horrified at a headlong rush to war that could have untold and unforeseen consequences. They were horrified that the rush to war is being led by the most powerful democracy in the world and that our nearest neighbour is apparently seized of the same determination to start a pre-emptive war. These people were intelligent, questioning and thoughtful. There was no knee-jerk impulse among them, but a deep sense that something new was happening in the world. It is stupid and insulting to characterise the people who marched on Saturday as either anti- American or naive. Despite what the propagandists might say, people understand full well that Iraq does not possess the might of the Third Reich. Dictator and tyrant that Hussein undoubtedly is, he rules a country whose people are already broken, physically and in spirit.

They know that if this war is a huge success in the eyes of the so-called coalition of the willing, a country will lie crushed by the onslaught of the greatest military power the world has ever known. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, will die in the short-term, with many more dying over time, and after Saddam Hussein has been killed or captured, terrorist attacks can still strike unsuspecting parts of the world and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

They know that if the war goes wrong, the entire region can be destabilised. If Hussein manages to hold out or if he manages to unleash some of the chemical weaponry he is still alleged to control, casualties could be huge on both sides and the legacy of a botched military effort could be many years of regional conflict, with other countries drawn into a war over the future of Islam and incalculable consequences, including catastrophic economic consequences, for the whole world.

There are no good scenarios here, no possibility in this approach of a clean outcome. Does anyone really believe we can easily foresee a day when the happy people of Iraq, free at last of their hated dictator, will want to share their new-found prosperity with the rest of the world? Does anyone really believe this war, once it is under way, will have no casualties except people who deserve it? This war will not be a Hollywood adventure, it will be bloody, bitter and poisonous. Even if it is over quickly, there will be no winners.

We should not be under any illusions either about what happened in Brussels last night. There are still palpably clear divisions in Europe between those who want to go to war now and those who want to find a peaceful solution. It is perhaps true to say that the real division now is between those who wish to find a way to disarm Iraq without war and those who are still bent on regime change.

We need to be very clear on this point. The United Nations has adopted a wide variety of resolutions in relation to Iraq, going back to the first Gulf War. None of them mentions or endorses regime change. Resolution 1441, as we know, deplores and criticises Iraq again and again for its many manifest failures in relation to disarmament. It repeats several times the sense of threat Iraq poses to international peace and security through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, but it also reaffirms the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Such a clause cannot be consistent with the entirely new principle that it is okay to go to war to secure a change of regime.

I am surprised our Government, in supporting the European position, has managed to remain so silent on the subject of regime change. The Irish Government is committed, under Article 29 of the Constitution, to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation among nations founded on international justice and morality and to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination. While that commitment does not preclude us from supporting action endorsed by the United Nations, and consistent with the United Nations Charter, it prevents our Government from acquiescing in, supporting or facilitating in any way a war whose purpose is to get rid of a regime we do not like.

A week ago, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, addressed this House at length on the subject of Iraq. In a considered and detailed speech, he made no reference to the issue of regime change. If the Government has referred to this issue elsewhere, I have been unable to find it. I hope we will not complete this debate today without hearing the Government's position on this issue. Having regard especially to the fact that the concept of regime change by force is alien to the United Nations Charter, I believe we need to hear the view of the Government on this important issue.

The Government has been voluble on the subject of disarmament. The Taoiseach is quoted in today's newspapers, for instance, as telling the European Council last night that "weapons inspections could not go on forever" and warning that the "authority of the Security Council was at stake". This is to misunderstand the inspection process.

The inspection process consists of two parts. The first part is the finding and destruction of any weapons of mass destruction. The second is the continual monitoring of Iraqi activities. It is up to the Security Council, and the Security Council alone, to sanction action that may be required arising from the findings of the inspectors. What will do most damage to the authority of the Security Council is the unilateral unleashing of a war, without the authority or consent of the Council. In any event, it would make one wonder whether the work of the inspectorate is being taken seriously by the leaders who are discussing it. Only four days ago at the Security Council, Dr. Blix stated:

I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.

In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 – it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament – either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated.

In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. While we were in Baghdad, we met a delegation from the Government of South Africa. It was there to explain how South Africa gained the confidence of the world in its dismantling of the nuclear weapons programme by a wholehearted cooperation over two years with IAEA inspectors. I have just learned that Iraq has accepted an offer by South Africa to send a group of experts for further talks.

In other parts of his presentation to the Security Council, Dr. Blix is implicitly and explicitly critical of Iraq, but how anyone can interpret this report as a mandate for war baffles me. How our Taoiseach can say, against the background of that report, that weapons inspections cannot go on forever also baffles me. At what point should the weapons inspections stop and what should replace them?

In our own country, we have some experience of how troubled and complex an issue disarmament can be. We know how it is tied up with issues of sovereignty and surrender, and we know that it is an issue that takes time, although the context is radically different. We have struggled with the issue of disarmament in Ireland since the first IRA ceasefire nearly eight and a half years ago, and we have still not made the progress we would wish, but none of us in this House has argued that we should give up on peace on that account.

The effort to secure a peaceful resolution to the threatening issue of Iraq must continue. Before this debate ends, I seek an assurance from the Taoiseach that his every effort will be bent in that direction. We cannot and must not support or facilitate a war aimed at regime change, no matter how much we hate the regime involved. We cannot give up on the disarmament issue while the inspectors appointed by the United Nations are making progress.

Is it not possible for a country like ours to lead the demand for peaceful disarmament through the United Nations? Why are we not insisting that the next step, in line with international law, ought to be Iraq's acceptance of a process that moves beyond inspection to actual disarmament? This is what Dr. Blix told the United Nations a couple of days ago:

Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory analytical capabilities at the Baghdad Centre. The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations. We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One third of the quantity has already been destroyed.

The disarmament of Iraq and removal of the threat can be achieved peaceably. This requires maintaining the maximum possible political and diplomatic pressure on Baghdad but no case has yet been established for a war that would kill hundreds of thousands. The message from Ireland must be the message of the people last weekend: we support peace, we believe the UN's objectives can be achieved through peaceful means and we oppose war.

The approach of this Government since the crisis escalated has been to keep its head down, say as little as possible and hope that it will go away. Once again the Taoiseach appears to have been largely a spectator at last night's summit in Brussels. One would search the international media in vain to find any account of a proposal or even a contribution made by the Taoiseach at the summit. The moral and political issues raised by the threat of war will not go away. As a people we have a right to expect something better from the Taoiseach than sitting on the fence and sending the hapless Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, on to Morning Ireland to suggest that the 100,000 people who marched through Dublin on Saturday were really demonstrating their support for Government policy.

The Taoiseach was a recent visitor to Mexico and I know he is an admirer of the President of Mexico, Vincente Fox. Mexico is a country with a common border with the United States and is hugely dependent on Washington in terms of investment and general political goodwill. Last week President Fox spelled out the position of his country in the following terms: no to unilateralism, no to war, yes to peace and yes to the disarming of Iraq and the strengthening of the United Nations. Would that we had a leader who was prepared to show half the political backbone of President Fox.

Dr. Cowley:

I propose to share five minutes with Deputy Harkin and to share the other ten minutes between Deputies Sargent and Ó Caoláin.

I was proud to march last Saturday and to speak from the platform. I was impressed by those present, who were not hardened political animals but fathers, mothers and children, the kind of people one sees out on a Sunday stroll. In some cases the family pets came along. However, this was no picnic. It was deadly serious. Some marchers had printed placards but many had placards they had made up at home with simple messages calling for a "No" to war. They shouted "no blood for oil" as they marched along in an expression of people power.

There was also an expression of people power in the last election, when I was elected because the Government had not delivered in my constituency. People were fed up then that nobody was listening to them, and they were fed up last Saturday for the same reason. That was the reserved function of those who wanted to be heard. If there had been a general election last Saturday then Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats would not be in power; they are damn lucky there was no poll last Saturday. The people wish to be heard but they have not been heard. They would not march if war was inevitable. It is not inevitable and they know public opinion can change the situation; otherwise there would have been no point in marching.

The people have spoken loudly and clearly and the Government will be in great peril if it ignores this message, delivered so simply and clearly. The people who marched, like me, are not anti-America, yet they resent the use of Shannon Airport in the build-up to a war nobody wants. They are putting the responsibility to carry out their wishes on the shoulders of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs; they will be held responsible for stopping the use of Shannon. The people have spoken and they should be listened to.

Ms Harkin:

The Greek Presidency should be congratulated for taking the initiative to organise the emergency summit meeting over the weekend. It took a risk but it was one worth taking, as it is important we have an EU statement or agreed position on Iraq. We need that to act as a counterbalance to the threat of unilateral action by the United States. I was hugely relived by the statement from the Council that war is not inevitable. It seems crazy to have to say that, but until now I and many people like me have had an awful sense that war is inevitable – that there is a relentless grinding machine moving towards war. The EU statement gives me some hope.

I also marched last Saturday, though in my home town of Sligo and not with the 100,000 people in Dublin. I was heartened to see so many people marching for peace because it sent a strong message to all politicians that the inspectors should be allowed to get on with their work and to proceed with disarming Iraq. The Taoiseach just said that the inspectors should continue as long as they and the Security Council consider they serve a useful purpose but I and many other Irish people want him not just to state that we back the UN but to make a statement on unilateral action by the US. However, if one backs the UN position one cannot support unilateral action by the US. One cannot have it both ways.

Kofi Annan urged EU Heads of State to concentrate on disarming Iraq. Under current conditions, with constant scrutiny by inspectors, it is unlikely that Iraq represents a substantial threat to world security. The EU statement also said the EU is determined to deal effectively with the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is very important because if the EU is determined to deal effectively with such weapons, then it must turn its attention to many countries, of which Iraq is only one. Perhaps in that context the art of politics may replace the act of war.

I am no apologist for Saddam Hussein and his evil regime but we must continue to back the UN in its role as guardian of international peace and security. Kofi Annan's statement regarding the credibility of the UN being at stake in this situation gives me hope that a negotiated and peaceful resolution can be found. I also have a little more hope that the EU can play an important role in achieving that resolution.

Mr. Sargent:

Previous speakers have referred to last Saturday's march. It is amazing to hear Government spokespersons claiming that the marchers, including my party, myself and other Deputies from this side of the House, were on that march in support of Government policy. If that was the case, why was there no official representation from the Government? It is clear the Government is being insincere and is insulting people by claiming the march was in support of its policy.

After the EU summit we now know that Government policy is to follow whatever others say, that it does not rule out the use of force and is prepared to limit the inspections, even though the Taoiseach said there should be as much time as might be needed. According to the official statement there is now a timeframe. That is a way of saying that we will go to war if we have to. If the British Government had taken that position at the height of terrorist attacks in Britain, or if the Good Friday Agreement were to stall, we would be here saying how unjust, unreasonable and aggressive such a position would be.

It is clear that the people who marched on Saturday were of the opinion that violence and war will not solve this matter, certainly not the type of bombardment the US is planning. In the absence of any Government policy other than waiting to see what happens and jumping then, the people have been listening to those with credibility on this matter. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War estimate that there will be between 48,000 and 260,000 civilian casualties in the first three months of a war without the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The Bush Administration has threatened to use such weapons so that figure will increase to even more frightening proportions. A report in The Guardian on 20 January stated that a UN special task force estimated 500,000 dead or wounded, with 16 million out of 26 million people in danger of starvation. There were predictions in the European Parliament that there would be three million refugees and displaced people. These figures come from those who are not afraid to say what will happen.

The Pentagon theatre nuclear planning document is frightening in the cavalier fashion in which it states that nuclear weapons will be used if necessary against bunkers, bunkers to which the weapons inspectors are expected to get access. The threat of nuclear weapons signifies not just a potential catastrophe for humanity but is also in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations. When the Taoiseach says we must respect the UN, we will be known by our actions.

Kofi Annan has said the sanctions are not working and we should call for them to be lifted. If the British and Americans oppose that we should challenge them. The Government claims that it will go along with the primacy of the UN but is it not going along with the primacy of its charter, which does not allow for regime change. We cannot have it both ways. We are either with the UN or not and in its charter, it makes clear its limitations and its extent. We should respect that rather than deal with the US interpretation of what the UN can do.

Dennis Halliday has made clear that Article 2.4 of the charter states that all "members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations". By going along with the current US-led policy, we are not just threatening global stability but are in flagrant breach of both the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

Reading the statement of the EU leaders to which the Taoiseach put his name, one could be forgiven for thinking that the weapons inspectors did not report to the United Nations last Friday or that millions of people did not march against war in dozens of cities across the globe last Saturday.

We are meeting in the wake of one of the largest demonstrations of direct democracy the world has ever seen. Here on the streets of Dublin the message could not have been clearer. The Government may try to spin its way out of it but it will do so in vain. Last Saturday, 100,000 people told this Government it does not act in their name when it allows Shannon Airport to be used for the military build-up, when it uses taxpayers' money to facilitate the over-flight of military aircraft through our airspace, when it fails to speak out, when it sits on the fence or, worse, when it aligns the State with the powers leading the drive to war.

The Taoiseach told marchers that the demonstration did not change the Government's position but he has now gone even further than that. According to The Irish Times, he has boasted that allowing the use of Shannon is “a small contribution to a military build-up”. At the same time, Government Deputies have claimed to agree with those marching at the weekend and that the march was somehow in line with Government policy. Those who would offer us such contributions should not insult our intelligence. Better their silence.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have nothing to be proud about from the outcome of the Brussels Summit, in fact the opposite is the case. They know that Resolution 1441 does not sanction force or war. They also know that the weapons inspectors reported real progress last week and that Hans Blix rubbished much of the alleged evidence presented to the UN Security Council by the Bush Administration. They know the dossier presented by Tony Blair and the British Government was a concoction and a sham. The Brussels statement had more to do with patching up the shaky relationship between the EU and the US, and relations within the European Union, than it did with resolving this crisis. The reality is that the UN and the EU have been sidelined by the Bush Administration and its British allies.

In the days ahead we will see attempts to cobble together a second Security Council resolution. If it is done it will be nothing other than a fig leaf to facilitate the war that is all but under way. If a resolution is not cobbled together, it is clear that the US and British Governments are prepared to attack without a second resolution. What has the Irish Government said and done? The Taoiseach cannot bring himself to oppose a US-British attack without a second UN resolution.

Already the Bush Administration has nominated the people it wishes to run Iraq as military governors after its invasion. For the first time in American history, the US is preparing to impose a direct colonial administration. The Kurds in northern Iraq are outraged that the Bush Administration has told them in talks that it has abandoned plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after the proposed invasion and overthrowing of Saddam.

The EU statement, which the Taoiseach signed, states that "the Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences". Of course, the Taoiseach knows that the people who will bear the consequences of this war will be the innocent men, women and children of Iraq, the very people who have suffered under Saddam and the appalling sanctions which have killed an estimated one million people.

I make a final appeal to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, echoing the voices of the 100,000 people who marched on the streets of Dublin last Saturday, not to make this State complicit in an unjust and disastrous war, not just for the people of Iraq and the Gulf region but, indeed, potentially for every citizen of this global village.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

That concludes statements. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will now take questions for a period not exceeding 20 minutes.

Mr. Durkan:

Deputy Joe Higgins has likened extracting information from the Taoiseach to playing handball against a haystack. Trying to get information on this subject matter is rather more like trying to catch smoke rings with a net. We do not seem to have advanced any distance.

In the aftermath of the discussions yesterday, has the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Taoiseach given any indication to our European colleagues as to the likely position of the Irish Government in the event of the US proceeding unilaterally? For example, within the confines of the meeting yesterday, notwithstanding the communiqué issued afterwards, it would have been expected that the various Governments represented there would have intimated to each other, in some degree of confidence, the likely road they would follow in such circumstances. Perhaps we could have an answer to that question first.

Mr. Cowen:

No, I did not.

Mr. Durkan:

The Minister did not? Given those circumstances, may I ask another question? The Taoiseach indicated some time ago that in relation to a letter signed by a number of the applicant countries for membership of the European Union, he would have signed that letter if he had been aware of it at the time. Is that still his position and that of the Government? If presented with that letter now, would the Government still be prepared to sign the letter?

Mr. Cowen:

There appears to be a predilection in this Parliament to ask hypothetical questions rather than practical ones. The Taoiseach and I have stated that there is no problem in relation to the sentiments expressed in the letters concerned, which referred to the primacy of the United Nations, and the need to resolve this matter peacefully. The business before the House relates to the meeting of the European Union Council last night. If Deputies have questions on that, they should put them. If there are some other questions, I will take them also.

In response to Deputy Durkan, the position of the Government is quite clear. It has been systematically misrepresented, for their own political purposes, by some elements of the Opposition. Just as I have to accept the sincerity of Deputies on the other side of the House, perhaps they will reciprocate occasionally, given that we all recognise the seriousness of the present situation. I thank Deputy Kenny for his recognition that there are no warmongers in this House. We are trying to solve this problem peacefully in a very difficult situation.

Ireland's position has been as clear as we can put it. We want this matter resolved peacefully and we recognise that primary responsibility for its resolution lies with the Security Council. We were represented when the resolution was formulated, devised and adopted unanimously. At the time, there was a great deal of pessimism as to whether that could be achieved. We would like to think we played a small part in ensuring that it was achieved. We stood for the principle in that resolution that the question of whether there is further material breach is a matter for the Security Council to decide, not for any one state or group of states. We stood for that principle and it is reflected in the resolution.

We stood for the principle that whatever further serious consequences were to follow should take place within the UN framework. Since the adoption of that resolution, even if Deputy Sargent does not accept this, the objective evidence confirms that the Irish Government has reflected and upheld, perhaps more accurately than many others, precisely what the UN position is in this regard. Deputy Sargent has stopped quoting the UN Secretary General – perhaps it no longer suits him to do so. I assure Deputy Durkan that the Government has consistently upheld the UN position in this matter.

Mr. M. Higgins:

I wish to ask a few simple, direct and positive questions. Do I understand correctly from the Taoiseach's speech that he is unequivocally of the view that a pre-emptive strike would be illegal, in breach of the UN Charter and, therefore, that it would be illegal to assist any such strike? I have two other questions to follow.

Mr. Cowen:

As I stated last week in reply to the Deputy, pre-emptive action is outlawed under the UN Charter, except in two circumstances outlined therein, self-defence or a Security Council decision to take military action in circumstances outlined in the relevant enforcement provisions. The problem in relation to unilateral action, as it has been described, or, more accurately, pre-emptive action, is that if the USA were to act without a further UN resolution, it would claim it was doing so under the already existing 17 resolutions in relation to this matter. The difficulty is that there is no common legal view on this point.

When asked what our position would be in those circumstances, we are saying clearly that we wish to avoid the need for military action in the first instance – should military action become unavoidable, we would wish to have it endorsed by a further UN resolution and we do not wish to have military action take place without such further resolution. Our position in relation to such action being taken, as I have outlined, would depend on the circumstances. I do not believe it is in our interests to provide for a definitive position in relation to a hypothetical circumstance. What if that circumstance does not materialise? What is the logic of accepting the inevitability of war and proceeding on the basis that unilateral action is the only outcome to all the efforts being made? I do not accept that. The EU Council stated last night, with one voice, that war is not inevitable.

That was also confirmed by the UN Secretary General last night. He advocated making sure to place the responsibility where it lies for the resolution of this problem and that the European Union should confirm that the Iraqi regime has it in its own hands to resolve this problem peacefully and immediately. UN Resolution 1441 is predicated – and, in response to Deputy Rabbitte's question, a successful outcome of the inspection regime is predicated, as confirmed by Dr. Blix among others – on the full co-operation of the Iraqi regime with the weapons inspectors. If there is full, unequivocal co-operation, this matter will be resolved peacefully. Let us take that responsibility.

Yesterday, we asked our EU partners in the UN Security Council to discuss with their partners, including the US and other members of the Security Council, a means by which we can ensure this can be resolved peacefully. Amid all the pessimism of those who advocate multilateral action and those who, apparently, are saying they know the hour, date and time of the war, would they not be better exercised in providing for an effective multilateral response to those whom they claim have already predetermined a unilateral outcome? That is the challenge to the multilateral system at this time, in my view.

I intend to work within the European Union and as a member of the United Nations to establish if it is possible for the Security Council to meet its collective responsibility in this matter in a way that will ensure the full and successful implementation of this resolution by peaceful means rather than military action. That is my intention. Those critics, some within this House, who seem to know the date and time of the war, continue to carp about the prospect of unilateral action. We must find an effective multilateral response to those who claim all this is predetermined. That is the challenge for the international community and that is where the Government stands.

Mr. M. Higgins:

I was dealing with the concept of pre-emption. I asked the question because it is the distinctive character of President Bush's foreign policy, announced as far back as 1997. My question was simple. I can put it differently, although I do not want to provoke a longer answer. I am sure Kofi Annan would agree too that the threat of pre-emption is probably the single greatest threat to the charter and practice of the United Nations. That being the case, will the Minister saw whether he found evidence, in such conversations as the Taoiseach had with the British Prime Minister, that Mr. Blair was inclined to move back from accepting the doctrine of pre-emption, which, with respect, is not a matter of legal doubt? There is a legal doubt about the interpretation of some of the legacy of resolutions, but not about the concept of pre-emption.

The straightforward question about it is this. Is the Minister not concerned about what circumstances and what form of compliance would roll back the military machine? I am not saying this as a pessimist. Where in Resolution 1441 did the Minister find text that suggested that there should be a military build-up of such scale to ensure compliance with the UN resolution?

The Minister and the Taoiseach are giving different signals on the question of a second Security Council resolution. I notice in the Taoiseach's speech – it is a very good point which has already been adverted to – that the reference is to the United Nations. The United Nations Charter is really what we all are speaking about. We are as committed to the charter as even a bullied Kofi Annan might be. The Minister knows there have been such circumstances in the past. In reply to a question about a resolution, I recall Kofi Annan, for whom I have total respect, describing participation in one decision in which he said, "I was not part of the loop." What matters is the charter, not the UN loop.

What we really wanted the Minister and the Taoiseach to say – I do not understand why they will not say it – is that they do not accept the principle of pre-emption like other countries, that they are totally against unilateral action and that they have committed themselves to a set of active principles in developing diplomatic alternatives. I accept that he will try it to the end, but can he not say that? Why can he not agree that the charter would be damaged by any pre-emptive action and then accept the consequences by not facilitating it?

Mr. Cowen:

Let us be clear. The doctrine of pre-emption, the idea that military force will be taken in the absence of any formal consideration by the Security Council, is not something to which I subscribe. It is not part of the UN Charter and I have stated that clearly.

On the question of what is determined by people here as unilateral action in relation to these resolutions, I have pointed out – Deputy Higgins, probably alone, accepts this – that there is not an international legal consensus on that matter because if the UK and the US were to act under this resolution, they would claim they already have that clearance under the resolutions.

Mr. M. Higgins:

Scarcely anybody agrees with them.

Mr. Cowen:

Let us make this point clear. The Deputy asks what is the Government's position. Our position is equally clear and I have stated it time and again. We want to see a second resolution, regardless of the legal argument, because we believe it will enhance the political legitimacy of such action were we to have a second resolution and maintain the resolve of the international community in facing down this tyrant who is continuing to defy the United Nations. This brings us to the next question.

For those who are trying to claim we are sitting on fences, we are being as clear as we can possibly be in this matter. When people ask me why I will not answer a hypothetical question, my answer is that I will not because no responsible Government here to defend our interest will answer a hypothetical question. I will answer every question on the evolving situation as it demands. In the event, with or without UN sanction for military action, we will come to this House, we will outline the position of the Government and there will be a debate in this House. There is not a better test or example of democratic accountability than that. I am not prepared, however, in the interests of trying to make sure we have devised effective multilateral responses in what is a very difficult and dangerous situation, to conduct a "what if" lesson in this House or anywhere else. If I get into that line of argument, I am allowing for the inevitability of war. There are people in this House – I do not question their sincerity – who do not want war who themselves have got into the logic that everything is inevitable and nothing can happen, and ask what is my position when all this happens.

Other people may have the date of the war, but I do not. As long as I am in this position representing the Government and all its people – I hope Deputy Cowley is still listening – I will seek to do everything I can, consistent with the traditions of successive Governments, to ensure the primacy of the United Nations and to work, however difficult the background against which we are operating, to make sure that the Security Council has the primary responsibility in this matter. It is not for the European Union to put down a time-line. We defended the principles and rights of the membership of the Security Council to decide whether there is a further material breach. That will have to come back to the Security Council. We defended the principle that, in the event of military action having to be taken in those circumstances, it would be a matter for the Security Council. That is what we are trying to defend here. Frankly I am tired of those who consistently misrepresent the position of the Government in this matter.

Mr. M. Higgins:

Will the Minister answer my question about Mr. Blair?

Mr. Cowen:

Let me make the point. I do not question Deputy Higgins's sincerity and I know that he does not question mine, but all of us had better stop playing the games of the schoolyard and realise that in the difficult situation we are in, we have to defend our traditions and principles in a way which will be effective. We want effective multilateral responses to this growing problem.

I take the point mentioned by the Secretary General at the UN that if we do not have full co-operation from the Iraqi regime, we are back to the situation where the grim choices have to be faced, where we have to discharge our responsibilities. Otherwise we put at risk the credibility of the collective security system which we have supported consistently since 1955. None of us wants to get to that position, but let us not let a dictator think that we are not prepared to contemplate that position. Were it the case that this regime were prepared to voluntarily co-operate and submit itself to the authority of the Security Council, as any respectable member of the international community should do given the gravity of this situation, we would not be worrying about the military build-up because it would not be necessary and there would not be the threat of force. These are the requirements of the situation.

All our experience confirms and all our evidence suggests that this regime does not move to acknowledge the authority of the United Nations until there is a credible threat of force against it. That is a fact, and I wish it were otherwise. It is a fact of life that we must internalise and recognise as being the means by which we can help to resolve this problem peacefully. It is up to us, and it is recognised in the European Union, in the Council conclusions last night, that that is an unfortunate fact of life which we must face up to. If we do not do that, all the evidence suggests that this gentleman will not respond as he is required to do.

I assure this House we will work might and main to seek a resolution of this matter peacefully. I respect and recognise the genuine humanitarian instincts of everybody who walked the streets of Dublin or any other town in Ireland and throughout the world last Saturday because I share their hope that we will get a peaceful solution to this problem. Knowing the character of the person with whom we are dealing and the nature of the regime with which we are confronted, unless we are prepared to let him know that the united resolve of the international community will not be undermined by his consistent defiance of the UN, we will not be serving the UN which we all want to respect and which we hope can win out in this case. That is the position of the Government and I cannot be more clear than that.

Mr. Boyle:

Has any member of the US administration said that there would be economic consequences if the Irish Government took a principled stand on this issue? Is it the Government's understanding that there would be consequences, given the reports that Mr. Rumsfeld has threatened Germany with such consequences for taking a principled stand? Does the Minister accept that those in charge of American investment decisions are themselves a cross-section of American society, where debate is animated on whether a war in Iraq is a good and just thing? In relation to the concept of the "last resort" referred to in the EU statement, does the Government agree with the view of the Bush administration that this is a matter of weeks and months, or do we have an open-ended timeframe in which to solve this problem?

Mr. Cowen:

We do not take instructions on economic policy from other people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The time is up so I will take a group of questions.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

It is great to hear such passion from the Minister. The Taoiseach commented that the use of Shannon was a small contribution to the military build-up. Since when has it been Government policy to contribute to this or any build-up to a war? This war has been going on for 12 years because bombings have been carried out in Iraq over that time, resulting in many deaths. Why was this Government policy not put before the Dáil?

Mr. J. Higgins:

I heard all of what the Minister said despite not being in the House for the first ten minutes. President Bush was reported tonight as saying that America does not need a second resolution to launch an attack. Can the Minister be very clear on his view on that? In view of the fact that he seems to be prepared to support a war in Iraq that could cost tens of thousands of lives, what threat, in the Minister's opinion, is posed by the Saddam Hussein dictatorship right now? Weapons inspectors of experience believe that most of his equipment has been destroyed or degraded by now and that he knows that he cannot explode a hand grenade outside his borders without facing possible obliteration. Is it not, therefore, a fiction to continue talking about weapons of mass destruction? Does the Minister believe that the US Government has no interest in securing the oil resources of Iraq for its own economy over the next 50 years? Is he saying that is not at all a factor in this situation?

Mr. Durkan:

Is the Minister satisfied that the EU is in a position to proceed with sufficient unity of purpose at this point, in light of the discussions and debates which took place yesterday to allow the Union to be of sufficient influence in the upcoming events?

Mr. Sargent:

The US Secretary of Defence, Mr. Rumsfeld, has said that the US is in a state of war with Iraq. Does the Minister agree with this and, if not, has he said as much to Mr. Rumsfeld or anybody in the US administration? The Taoiseach and the Minister have talked to us on a number of occasions about how the threat of war is having an effect. If he believes that, will the Minister put forward an amendment to the UN Charter, Article 2(4), which directly prohibits, in international relations, the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity—

Mr. Cowen:

One would want to be a political naif to think that the inspectors would be in Iraq today if there were not the credible threat of force.

Mr. Sargent:

So the UN Charter is being contravened.

Mr. Cowen:

The Deputy should not quote the UN Charter at me. I will quote it for him any day of the week, but the Deputy seems to have a selective memory when it comes to the charter.

Mr. Sargent:

I am just reading it.

Mr. Cowen:

Deputy Sargent has not yet confirmed publicly that he recognises that military action is a last resort within the UN Charter in certain circumstances.

Mr. Sargent:

So the action is in line with the charter.

Mr. Cowen:

If he wants further clarification of why I think that he should ask Mr. Joschka Fischer, to whom I spoke yesterday, who accepts it, he should ask Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schröder, everybody who signed the conclusions our Taoiseach signed last night. That is confirmation—

Mr. Sargent:

Will the Minister amend the charter?

Mr. Cowen:

I am answering the questions the Deputy asked.

Mr. Sargent:

The Minister is not answering them.

Mr. Cowen:

Of course I am not, I never answer them to Deputy Sargent's satisfaction.

Mr. Sargent:

Yes or no.

Mr. Cowen:

The record will show that what I have to say is the truth. These are the facts, recognised by all EU leaders in the conclusions that were finalised last night. This is also recognised by the UN Secretary General. Deputy Ó Snodaigh tells me there has been a war going on for the past 12 years. The Gulf War ended in 1991. I am not aware of any other war going on at the moment.

Mr. M. Higgins:

It has been going on in the desert.

Mr. Cowen:

I would love to see declarations of many wars being over. I assure the Deputy that my advocacy and passion for disarmament is as strong at home as it is abroad.

Deputy Joe Higgins asked about oil reserves. This situation has arisen as a result of the order to disarm within 90 days given to the Iraqi regime after the Gulf War ceasefire in 1991. Unfortunately, it did not take that opportunity. Everything that has happened since would have been totally avoidable had that regime submitted to the authority of the UN then. The UN is continuing to seek a peaceful solution to the problem of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The inspec tors are not yet satisfied – serious questions remain unanswered to this day. If these questions were properly answered and full co-operation was provided by Iraq, the real threat of military action and all the uncertainty and dismay being experienced by citizens throughout the world, as well as the poor people of Iraq, could be dissipated overnight. Let us hope that the leader of that regime will for once put his people before his unusual attachment to weapons such as these.

Mr. M. Higgins:

Why was the offer of ending sanctions lifted?

Mr. Cowen:

It is a measure of the good faith of the UN – our bona fides in the international community – that we avoid war as a means of providing whatever incentive we can to get this gentleman to co-operate fully with Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei If he would do that, we would suggest the lifting of sanctions, which everybody in this House would advocate. Sanctions were imposed in the first place because he would not disarm, as he has been asked to do under successive resolutions – there are 17 on the book at the moment.

Mr. M. Higgins:

Mr. Warren Christopher removed them.

Mr. J. Higgins:

Even if he had not, we could not use them.

Mr. Cowen:

Mr. Annan said one wise thing among many things last night.

Mr. M. Higgins:

Was it to Pat Cox? He needs to talk to Pat Cox.

Mr. Cowen:

No. The Deputy can be smart if he wants to. Mr. Annan said that it was time for everyone to stop turning on themselves and turn their attention to where the responsibility is so that we can resolve this matter peacefully. Let the international community unite and find a way to solve this. It is to be hoped that the Arab League and others, who are as anxious as we are to resolve this matter peacefully, will be able to convince the Iraqi leadership that it must, in the interest of international order, peace and security, finally accept the authority of the United Nations, the primacy of which we are seeking to defend in everything we are doing.

Mr. Durkan:

What about unity of purpose in the EU? The Minister did not answer my last question.