Vol. 571 No. 2
130 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government policy on the continuing conflict in Afghanistan; the assistance the Government has given to the Afghan people; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21152/03]
191 Mr. Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the progress in stabilising Afghanistan. [21103/03]
I propose taking Questions Nos. 130 and 191 together.
On 9 April 2003 I made a statement to the House concerning the situation in Afghanistan. Since then, the progress towards re-establishing a democratic civil government in Afghanistan has continued. The Afghanistan Transitional Authority, established in June 2002, will be replaced by an elected government in accordance with the provisions of the Bonn agreement. These elections are due to take place in June 2004. An electoral commission has been established and the UN mission in Afghanistan has started to organise the electoral process.
A constitutional commission was inaugurated on 26 April 2003 and drafted a new constitution for the country. Public consultations on the draft constitution followed. However, the holding of a constitutional loya jirga to debate the constitution has been postponed until mid-December, amid reports that many major constitutional questions have not yet been settled.
Progress has also been made on the creation of a national police force and reform of the national army, the first battalions of which have begun military operations, along with coalition forces. The principal challenge facing the Afghanistan Transitional Authority is that of security, particularly in the centre and south of the country where attacks on coalition forces and government troops, as well as NGO personnel, have increased in recent weeks, mainly by resurgent Taliban elements. The illicit production and trafficking of drugs in Afghanistan also remains a serious obstacle to the country's stability and reconstruction. The Transitional Authority's writ largely does not run beyond Kabul and warlords, often in the capacity of regional governors, still exercise great control.
On 11 August 2003, the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, with which Irish personnel continue to serve in Kabul, was transferred smoothly from Germany and the Netherlands to NATO. As will be recalled, ISAF operates in Afghanistan under authority conferred by the United Nations Security Council in its Resolution 1386. The NATO leadership of ISAF is currently exploring the feasibility of an expansion of ISAF's mandate beyond the immediate Kabul region. Any such expansion would be dependent on a further Resolution of the UN Security Council.
The Government remains committed to the full implementation of the Bonn agreement and the construction of a peaceful, democratic society in Afghanistan. At the International Conference on Afghanistan in January 2002, Ireland pledged €12 million over a three-year period for reconstruction programmes. Almost €9.4 million, just over 78% of this pledge, has been delivered or approved for delivery within 20 months of the conference. Ireland is therefore one of the leading international donors to Afghanistan on a per capita basis. Ireland is also committed to supporting the electoral process in 2004, and is giving consideration to funding it.
Together with our EU partners, Ireland remains committed to and will continue to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan to help ensure that, with the assistance of the international community, it may emerge as a stable and peaceful democracy.
131 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the concept of a pre-emptive strike being illegal in international law no longer applies in relation to Irish foreign policy and the Government's failure to defend the principle; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21068/03]
The Government is of the view that threats to international peace and security should be dealt with through the United Nations and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter contains a general prohibition on the use of force, subject to two exceptions, both set out in Chapter VII of the charter. These are self-defence, Article 51, and collective enforcement action authorised by the Security Council in response to threats to or breaches of international peace and security or acts of aggression, Article 42.
Article 51 of the charter recognises the right of states to take action in pursuit of individual or collective self-defence, if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. The charter requires states taking such action to notify the Security Council immediately.
It is widely accepted that the right to self-defence encompasses an entitlement to take limited and proportionate action where necessary to counter the threat of imminent attack. In any case, it is clear from the charter that the right to act in self-defence is recognised only until such time as the Security Council has itself taken measures necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Ireland does not accept that such an entitlement to limited and proportionate action should be interpreted as a general license to endorse the concept of the pre-emptive strike.
The Taoiseach addressed this issue in his statement to the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September, when he stated that the Irish Government would be concerned at the widespread acceptance of a doctrine of pre-emptive strike. He underlined Ireland's view that conflict would be more effectively prevented through a range of diplomatic, economic and humanitarian actions. He called for more attention to be paid to addressing the root causes of conflict, and to the early identification of potential conflicts. Where conflict had become a possibility, the international community should act more aggressively to head it off. He stressed that any conflict that threatened international peace and security was the UN's legitimate business and should be dealt with by the Security Council.
The Government is in agreement with the views expressed in the UN General Assembly by UN Secretary General Annan on 23 September when he stated that the assertion that states had the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively represented a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested since the foundation of the UN. At the same time, according to the Secretary General, it was also necessary to face up squarely to the concerns that made some states feel uniquely vulnerable and drove them to take unilateral action, and to show that these concerns could and would be addressed through collective action.
At no stage has this Government propounded a view at variance with international law. Regarding Iraq, in our explanation of vote when Resolution 1441 was adopted, we stated that regardless of the legal arguments as to whether Iraq's continued defiance of existing UN resolutions already gave sufficient grounds for military action to be taken, we felt that for reasons of according the widest possible political legitimacy for any such action, a further decision by the Security Council should be taken on that matter. It is also clear that under international law, the provision of landing facilities or the use of airspace does not constitute a participation by us in a war.
