Vol. 562 No. 5
115 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his involvement in the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers and the summit of EU leaders dealing with the Iraqi situation held on 17 February 2003. [6438/03]
The European Council meeting on 17 February was very productive, in that, its outcome demonstrated the broad range of agreement among the members of the European Council.
Ireland made a significant contribution to the shaping of the agreement. The conclusions restated the European Union objective of full and effective Iraqi disarmament and the desire to achieve this peacefully. I am pleased at the level of consensus which this reflected. In our discussions we also took full account of the deep public concerns about the possibility of conflict.
Every European Union government is anxious to avoid war. That is why we want to see the disarmament of Iraq achieved through exclusively peaceful means, in accordance with Resolution 1441.
The Government's policy on the issue of Iraq has been reflected in this as in other EU policy statements, which generally correspond to our view that war is not inevitable, that force must be used only as a last resort, that we support the work of the arms inspectors, that the unity and firmness of the international community and the military build-up have been essential in obtaining the return of the inspectors, and that those factors will remain essential in achieving the full co-operation needed to attain the goal of disarming Iraq peacefully.
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.
I will not go back over old ground. We know the view of the Minister and the Government on full compliance by Iraq; we have heard it often enough.
With regard to the meeting of 17 February at which unity was the aim – I understand that would also be the Minister's view – would the British view on compliance be much different from the Irish view on it? Is the allocation of, say, 250,000 troops by Britain and the United States around the borders of Iraq a confidence building measure? Is it the Irish Government's view that they will turn around and head home again if we get further compliance? What compliance would be full compliance?
Is the Minister aware that one of the 16 resolutions – not all of those resolutions come under Chapter VII which we discussed earlier – he mentioned earlier, Resolution 678, which deals with weapons of mass destruction, provides for the ending of sanctions should there be full compliance? Is the Government still advancing this view in the knowledge that Warren Christopher unilaterally dropped this section of the resolution as far back as 1998?
If we get full compliance and this matter is peacefully resolved to the satisfaction of the international community and Saddam Hussein no longer has the capability he has, which he should not have under the arrangements made when the ceasefire to the Gulf War was negotiated by his generals, I assure the Deputy we will advocate the dropping of sanctions pretty quickly because they were only brought in because Saddam Hussein would not comply with his own agreements.
In relation to the European Council meeting, the common position was set out. Given the expectations for that meeting, the idea that it would end in total disarray and that it would not be possible to have a common position, that was avoided. It is important for the political credibility of the European Council that it was avoided. In fairness to the leaders of the governments who have different views on these matters, there was a preparedness on all their parts to work to that common position which emerged. It is to the credit of them all that they did that, although it was not to the effect that differences had been eliminated.
As regards the military build-up and the purpose of it, rather than being considered a confidence building measure I hope it is a confidence shattering measure for the Iraqi regime and, if it gets it to disarm peacefully, I welcome it. I hope the Security Council under the terms of its resolution and through the inspectors' reporting mechanism is able to confirm that full compliance is forthcoming, although unfortunately I read what Mr. Blix had to say that the level of co-operation appears to increase with the imminence of the publication of his reports.
The problem is one of attitude. The inspectors' reports state that the issue of attitude would get us out of this logjam of uncertainty and crisis. It is unfortunate that the Iraqi regime appears incapable of providing the level of co-operation that would enable the inspectors to confirm to the Security Council that they are obtaining full compliance. Our position is that, as long as the inspectors and the Security Council believe the inspection work is useful, we will support it. If the Security Council reaches a different conclusion based on the fact that full compliance has not been forthcoming, we will also have to support that.
How many members of the European Council were in favour of regime change and subjecting the activity to a timescale? When did the factor of time become a common European theme? I take it from the Minister's position that, if faced with a choice, he supports giving more resources and time to the inspectors to avoid war and that there are no circumstances in which he would support the British-American position of forcing pre-emptive action.
I will be guided by the Security Council in these matters. As the Deputy knows, under international law they are matters for the Security Council. If the council comes to these conclusions, they will be supported by the Government. There is a continuing attempt—
That is a fudge.
No. Either one accepts the way the United Nations works or one does not.
Yes, but I do not think the Government accepts that.
The Deputy quotes from it when it suits him and ignores it on other occasions.
The issue is whether the Americans have reached a conclusion.
The reality, as the Deputy knows, is that it is a matter for the Security Council to come to conclusions in these matters and we ask that the council work coherently and collectively to bring about a common position to achieve that.
The Minister will not give us the Government's position.
It does not advance the Deputy's approach to shout down others when they speak.
I am trying to enlighten the Minister.
The earlier comments were addressed more to Deputy Gormley than to Deputy Higgins who I have always found to be a beacon of consistency on these occasions.
The common position of the European Council is that war is not inevitable, that it should only be used as a last resort, and that Baghdad must have no illusions but that it must disarm and co-operate immediately and fully. Iraq has a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully and the Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community and does not take this last chance. That is the common position of all in the European Union.
And Britain and the United States will be responsible if they act unilaterally.
The objective is the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. That is the basis upon which the resolutions have been brought forward. If, as was envisaged, the inspectors are unable to obtain the compliance the Security Council would regard as adequate, serious consequences will follow and we know what that means.
If there is failure to disarm voluntarily, clearly there is, under the enforcement mechanism in Chapter 7, the contemplation of involuntary disarmament by reason of incomplete co-operation by the Iraqi regime. Obviously this would involve it losing its grip on the country. Presumably no one in the House contends or advocates the absurd proposal that, in the event of military action and the involuntary disarmament of the Iraqi regime, the regime will remain in place.
Has the EU Council of Ministers considered the situation in Iraq after Saddam Hussein? The Americans appear to have a game plan for what will happen in Iraq afterwards. Has the European Union General Affairs Council considered what role Europe might play in Iraq after Saddam Hussein in the areas of stability, peace, security and ensuring Iraq does not break up with all the implications that has for the region?
I am concerned about our citizens. How many Irish people are in Iraq and what arrangements are in place, consular or otherwise, to cater for their interests in the event of hostilities?
That is the subject matter of a question that has not been reached.
Does the Minister agree that his attitude and behaviour on this matter contrast with those of the German foreign minister, my Green colleague, Joschka Fischer, who has a clear position on Iraq while the Minister continues to shilly-shally on the issue?
I disagree with that characterisation of my position. The German position, which I respect, is that it will not support military action, even in the event of UN authorisation. It is unique in the European Union and the wider international community where there are genuine differences of opinion, which I respect. We have a different position which adheres to the belief that the UN should try to resolve the matter peacefully but that, if military action ensues on foot of a second UN resolution, we will uphold it. That has been the consistent position of successive Governments regarding UN positions. It is just as credible, sincere and properly motivated as anything of the German Government which we respect but with which we have a difference.
While I understand Deputy Gormley's loyalty to his Green Party colleague, he should not contend that the Irish Government does not give equal consideration to the principles that inform its foreign policy and by which we would seek to defend our interests and take into account all circumstances. It is important to point out to Deputy Gormley that we can have a democratic debate in the House not on the basis of anyone shilly-shallying but of sincerely held differences motivated by the same principle of defending our interests, promoting the principles that inform our foreign policy, taking into account all the circumstances should the unfortunate event of military action occur, and doing everything in the meantime to avert it.
Regarding what Deputy Gay Mitchell said, all these concerns come into play in how we deal with this. It is a situation that evolves day to day. We should not lock into the inevitability of military action and that nothing can happen in the meantime. We have granted a limited opportunity towards trying to influence this matter for the better by resolving it peacefully. The fact we have not had sufficient success to date does not mean we accept the inevitability of military action, although we recognise the situation we are in and that we must work within that framework and difficult environment.
As regards Deputy O'Keeffe's question, I refer him to Question No. 117 which sets out the steps we are taking.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
