JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Apr 2003

Vol. 1 No. 11

Post-War Iraq: Presentation.

Chairman

The Dáil and Seanad are in session, and Deputy Tony Dempsey has to attend another committee. I welcome the representatives from GOAL and Concern.

While we all wish for an early end to the conflict in Iraq, we want in the meantime to be pro-active in doing everything possible to relieve the suffering of the innocent citizens of Iraq and the refugees and to ensure the stability of the region. This should be tackled on two fronts, political and humanitarian.

In respect of the political situation, there should be an immediate involvement of the UN to guarantee the integrity of Iraq after the military conflict ends and to reinforce the commitment made recently by the foreign ministers of the main neighbouring countries - Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The UN should do everything in its power to ensure the stability of the region is maintained and that there will be no extension of hostilities beyond the boundaries of Iraq. In this regard the UN Security Council should call on all states in the region to cooperate with the UN to ease tensions and help with humanitarian assistance for refugees and the citizens of Iraq.

We want to see the immediate implementation of the road map for peace and security in the Middle East, which was prepared by the UN, the US, the EU and Russia as a quartet. In this regard, I especially welcome the recent initiative of the US and the UK, which endorses the commitment to have a peace settlement based on the recognition of two states in the area, Israel and Palestine. Now is the time to bring the plan to fruition. It provides a practical solution, based on peace and stability as well as economic and political development. We need to push for this at EU and UN levels. I propose to press for this approach when I meet later this week in Athens with the foreign affairs committee chairmen of the parliaments of all the EU partners and the 10 accession countries.

When the time comes, the UN should take the first opportunity to assist the Iraqi people to establish a cross-community government, which will administer the needs of Iraq and help it to return to the international family of nations.

On the humanitarian position, we should ensure everything is done to look after the refugees fleeing the war zone and the innocent civilian population left behind. To carry out these tasks, we must insist that the UN and the EU, while they have no role in the war, play their full part both in providing aid and humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi population during and after the war, and become fully engaged in the diplomatic process.

To this end there should be an end to sanctions as soon as practicable. In the meantime there should be an immediate decision to allow free access for life-sustaining necessities. Notwithstanding this, there should be an immediate mobilising of international aid to ensure that the civilian population of Iraq has adequate food, medicine and access to clean water. We know from our visit to the UN in New York last November that the UN has already provided huge stockpiles of food aid, medicines, general supplies and essential equipment in neighbouring countries to meet the needs of the refugees and of the innocent civilians.

A good start was made last Friday by the UN Secretary General in securing permission from the UN Security Council to use the funding from the UN oil for food programme to supply immediate humanitarian assistance for Iraqi refugees and citizens in need.

We must also ensure that the EU will remain fully committed to providing humanitarian assistance for the country and will be foremost in the reconstruction of Iraq once hostilities have ceased.

However, apart from all of this we in Ireland also want to play our part on a bilateral basis in providing humanitarian assistance and in the early reconstruction of Iraq. The Government has already provided €5 million for immediate aid in the region. We also know that our NGOs are already active there. For that reason I am delighted to welcome representatives of Concern and GOAL, who have agreed to outline their views on the humanitarian needs of the population in Iraq. From GOAL I welcome its chief executive, Mr. John O'Shea and Mr. Colin Lee, and from Concern I welcome their chief executive officer Mr. Tom Arnold and their regional director Anne O'Mahony.

Before we commence I would again remind the meeting that while members are covered by privilege, others appearing before the committee are not.

Deputy M. Higgins

Procedurally, before Mr. O'Shea begins, because I am anxious to listen to him as well, I should like to say that while the chairman's statement is welcome, I am bound in principle to say that I disagree with it, and it does not reflect my views. Anything we are to hear this afternoon does not affect my view on the illegality of the invasion that has taken place. I do not regard the oil for food programme as humanitarian aid. Neither does anyone else. It is a distribution of food on the basis of oil that is sold and distributed according to UN resolution, and it is entirely separate from humanitarian aid.

I agree that there is a need for diplomatic effort by way of intervention to bring the war to an end so as to enable the Irish people and the United Nations to play a meaningful role. I also think it is invidious to draw distinctions between citizens who are innocent and citizens who are not, in an autocratic regime administered in the way Saddam Hussein's regime is. Use of the phrase"welcoming back Iraq to the family of nations in the international community", is also regrettable. Iraq has been dealing with the United Nations over a very long period, through 17 resolutions, both at the Security Council and through all of its agencies. I feel honour-bound that at least my view in this regard would be recorded.

Chairman

Thank you, Deputy. As the Deputy will know, the Dáil and Seanad have already debated that issue, and I am sure the Houses will return to the topic very soon. The Fine Gael party led by Deputy Mitchell has an extensive Private Members' motion for discussion tonight. We wanted here today to focus on humanitarian and other aid and reconstruction.

Deputy M. Higgins

I do not want it to be misconstrued that we are accepting the legality of the war, because we are not.

Chairman

No, that is accepted, for the matter has been debated.

Deputy M. Higgins

You and I have different views - that is it.

Chairman

This portion of our agenda is confined to assistance and reconstruction, and I ask members to address those issues. I have asked Concern and Goal to make a presentation on this aspect of the crisis and to respond to members' questions on that matter.

Mr. John O’Shea

I will be as brief as I can. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer to this unholy mess. I wish I had a crystal ball.

Goal is interested only in Iraq's vulnerable population. Nothing else currently bothers us because we have enough to concentrate on worrying about their future. There are at least three scenarios. The first, which is preferable, is that the war ends quickly. If that happens, the humanitarian disaster can and will be averted. Never before in my experience, which stretches back to Pol Pot's Cambodia in 1977, have we had a situation where aid was so well prepared. Not only are the United Nations and the European Union very anxious to become involved, but there are two major governments in the area. If they decide that the lives of the vulnerable people of Iraq count for anything, their resources can be brought to bear on the situation.

Money is not a problem, and the people themselves are accessible. Iraq is not Afghanistan, where there is a problem reaching people in the mountains. Nor is it southern Sudan, Angola or even Sierra Leone, from where your previous speakers hail. If the war could be brought to a conclusion, with some form of ceasefire, I would be very confident that major loss of life - that which concerns us - could be averted.

The second scenario, that of the war dragging on, unfortunately creates a different situation. We are not certain of our information, and perhaps no one outside Iraq is, but indications are that a substantial quantity of food has been stockpiled. If the war dragged on, even that food would be depleted, and the military would get involved in distributing aid. That would be wrong, since it would be dangerous for many people and also ineffective. The people's suffering would increase as a result. It is also possible that the Iraqi army would try to divert food that should be going to the people to itself. The problems associated with the war dragging on could be horrendous and would of course mean that the aid community, including United Nations agencies, would not have access to the vulnerable population. It is absolutely imperative that they, rather than the military, deliver the aid.

The third scenario would be the introduction of safe corridors, a step which has worked before in certain African crises. If that happened, and we in the aid community were allowed to go in and provide food and other essentials to the people, it would be valuable and important, at least in the short-term. Security considerations are uppermost in my mind. I will not risk the lives of any Irish doctors or nurses, or those of anyone else for that matter, in Iraq until we are absolutely certain it is safe. The great imponderable is where we are to get that certainty, whether it is the United States military or the United Nations. Currently the United States military is making the decisions, but I would rather if it was the United Nations.

It is therefore extremely important that Kofi Annan is encouraged in every possible way to take a lead role. He must face up to the Americans and the British and let them know that the United Nations should have control of the entire aid effort. We will enter in their slipstream along with all the other small agencies. However, the question remains whether the military or the United Nations are in charge. The only way we can be certain of getting aid to those in greatest need is if the United Nations calls the shots.

A few nights ago, to our horror, we saw food being thrown from the back of lorries. That sort of thing will continue if the military goes on doing a job for which it is not trained or equipped and in which it lacks experience and, ultimately the necessary interest. It certainly does not have the love for the poor which one would find in small, dedicated, vibrant agencies. The greatest role which the Government could play at this point is not financial, as members will be pleased to hear. Rather it consists of convincing whoever is close to Kofi Annan to encourage him to tackle America and Britain on the issue which for us is most important, namely ensuring the vulnerable population is looked after.

As matters stand, I am not entirely certain that the Unites States military wants to hand over the aid effort to anyone else. There is no indication that it is ready to allow the food-for-oil programme to be administered by the United Nations. It can hardly be done by the Iraqis, who had been doing it in co-operation with the United Nations, for they are now at war. It is obvious too that the programme must restart, for 16 million people were getting their monthly rations from it. There is obvious potential for a humanitarian crisis if that pipeline ceases to function. If so many people are in regular receipt of food saving life and limb, it is obvious that it will have to be delivered somehow. The United States military will not have the capacity to do so. However, if Kofi Annan can do as I wish, he will convince both the American and the British military to place their logistical capability at the disposal of the aid effort.

One thinks back to such places as Ethiopia in 1984, when 6 million people were starving and the aid community was looking for thousands of lorries to move food. We had something like 11 lorries in the city, so it was no wonder that we buried so many people. In Goma, in what was then Zaire, in the aftermath of the Rwandan tragedy, we did not even have a JCB in the country to bury 40,000 women and children who had died of cholera. The international community had no interest, and there was no governmental involvement. The United Nations agency did not live up to expectations.

In Iraq at least we have the most powerful Government in the world together with another fairly substantial one, both keen to win kudos or perhaps repair some of the damage done to relations with their European partners. For whatever reason, they appear to want to help the people of Iraq. There is also a United Nations establishment gearing up. There is talk of vast quantities of food in Kuwait and on Iraq's other borders ready to go in. The emphasis must be on finding some way to end the war and, almost as important, on ensuring the United Nations rather than the military take the lead role. Goal will not be taking any unnecessary risks with the lives of its staff. We have made an agreement with the United Nations World Food Programme, the biggest organisation when it comes to distributing food to Third World countries, to oversee distribution in two provinces. We will do that when it is safe to do so. When the United Nations have stepped over the line, we will be in behind it. We do not see it as a situation where, as happened many times in Africa, we have to go in irrespective of what the United Nations does. The situation is very dangerous and fraught with problems, and we must be certain that our staff are safe before going forward.

Chairman

Thank you very much for that very forthright and incisive contribution. Perhaps before we get into questions we will take the second contribution from Mr. Tom Arnold who is the chief executive officer of Concern.

Mr. Tom Arnold

We circulated a paper for the benefit of the committee which I do not propose to go through in detail but it is a reference document. It starts by giving a brief account of Concern's previous work about ten years ago during the last Iraqi crisis. It then moves rapidly on to describe some of the monitoring work we have been doing in recent months, including a visit that my colleague Anne O'Mahony made in February, and it gives an account of some of the practical work we have done with some of our partners in the region.

The point that John O'Shea made at the beginning is fairly obvious and crucial, that what matters at this stage is how long this war is to continue. We would have very grave concerns that there are signs this war will continue longer than people expected. If that is the case our fear is that we could face a major crisis and it will have several dimensions. It is fairly widely accepted that the short-term availability of food in the country is not the major problem. There are stocks of food there which have been distributed through the World Food Programme and the oil for food programme. If the period of conflict continues that pipeline will diminish notwithstanding the decision of the UN Security Council last week to re-establish the oil for food programme because if there is no access that decision in principle will not be worth a great deal.

The second issue, and it is probably the more pressing one, is that of water and sanitation. If there is to be serious disruption of infrastructure, including attacks on electricity supplies, the capacity for people in cities in particular to get clean water and to have working sanitation arrangements could be very seriously undermined. There are certain things happening at the moment to deal with that and it depends on the length and intensity of the conflict.

When we get down to seeing what should be done in practical terms if this conflict continues for longer than people would hope, there is a basic obligation on the international community to ensure that the Geneva Convention is respected. We are talking about the International Committee of the Red Cross getting access and being given access by both of the warring parties. There is a solemn obligation on behalf of the international community to achieve that. A very important issue inherent in this conflict, as it was in Afghanistan and in other places in recent years, is the whole question of the relationship between the military and the humanitarian agencies. It is a complex area and we would not pretend otherwise. At one level NGOs want the humanitarian space, as it is called, to go in and work. At another level it is quite clear that unless they have the conditions of security they will not be able to do that and there are some genuine concerns about the blurring of identities that have occurred in recent years between the military and humanitarianism. From the humanitarian perspective this is extremely dangerous and it is occurring in certain respects again.

The other dimension of concern to us - something we have talked about in this committee at least twice in the past three months - is that this Iraqi conflict already has diverted a massive amount of attention away from humanitarian problems elsewhere, most specifically the food crisis in Africa. Attention is only one aspect of the problem. In terms of resources we are talking about a war to which $75 billion has been allocated in the United States in recent weeks and which will cost at least $10 billion a month to prosecute. The cost of solving the food problems, or at least of providing enough food for this year, in Africa, where nearly 30 million people are at risk of starvation, is probably of the order of $2 billion or $3 billion. There is a massive disproportion there. It behoves everybody to keep reminding the countries that are spending all this money that they are obliged to make sure we are not allowing massive numbers of people to go hungry while resources can be found to prosecute wars.

There is a genuine problem for all the NGO communities, as John says, in that they do not have access to Iraq at present and it is only when that access is provided that there will be a chance of defining in precise terms what can be done and what it is sensible to do. In the longer term there is a basic issue of how long the war will last and its outcome, in the hope that the war will conclude, presumably on the basis that Mr. Saddam Hussein will no longer be there. The question then is the role of the UN and I am sure there would be general agreement around this committee about the crucial importance of that and the mandate for the UN. That will involve some tricky questions and relationships, particularly between the United States and the rest of the international community. The rest of the international community has to do everything in its power to insist it is the UN that drives this forward both in terms of the physical reconstruction and in terms of the Government's arrangements. This is beyond the scope of the committee but crucially there are things to learn from Afghanistan, for example, unless the governance is put on a sound footing in Iraq the future of that country will be much diminished. That, in a nutshell, is what I wanted to say.

Deputy G. Mitchell

I join the Chairm an in welcoming John O'Shea, Tom Arnold and their colleagues Colin Lee and Anne O'Mahony. We will have a debate about humanitarian aid to Iraq in the Dáil this evening and it is useful to have this discussion as a preparation for that, apart from the opportunity to have an exchange here today. I was struck by what both contributors had to say and I note from the Concern document that its estimate for the humanitarian budget is about 3.5% of the cost for the prosecution of the conflict, which puts the whole thing in context. I also note that Concern describes in strong terms the limited hearts and minds intervention of the military to date as having been shambolic not to mention, as I think John O'Shea said, chaotic as well. I also note the quote from Kofi Annan when he said that humanitarian and military action need to be kept separate because "if these lines are blurred there is a grave risk of irreparable damage to the principle of impartiality and humanitarian assistance".

The tenor of what both John O'Shea and Tom Arnold said seems to be that there is a capacity there to deal with this, that has not been available in other regions and that we may be in danger of taking our eye off the ball where there are serious humanitarian crises to address. At the same time they are saying really that humanitarian organisations should go in there under UN auspices. I would like to put this case to them, recalling the adage about justice being done and being seen to be done. One of the reasons we are taking the opportunity this evening and tomorrow evening to discuss humanitarian aid in the Dáil is to communicate to the people of the Middle East and the people concerned in Iraq in particular that there is a humanitarian concern and it is not the West versus the Middle East or Christianity versus Islam.

It is important that this message is communicated.

Recently, there were worrying comments from leading people in Jordan, we saw busloads of volunteers leaving Beirut and threatening noises were made against Syria. It would take very little for a pan-Arab response in some format to emerge as a result of what is happening in Iraq. Do the representatives agree it is important that we are seen to be concerned and ready to be involved in humanitarian relief?

We know from the European affairs committee that a very substantial amount - in the region of €15 billion - of the European Union budget for development aid goes unused. The Concern presentation referred to the reconstruction interventions in Iraq which I presume go beyond foodstuffs and take in clean water and sewerage systems. Who does Concern envisage contributing to that? Have the NGOs made a case to the European Union that some of the unused budget should now be earmarked for post-conflict Iraq?

Chairman

I take it operatives of both organisations are based in neighbouring countries to Iraq?

Deputy M. Higgins

I join others in welcoming our guests to the joint committee. It is very informative and helpful that we meet them at this time to discuss the present situation in Iraq.

My understanding of the food system is that 16 million people depend on the Iraqi government's oil for food programme, which is not a humanitarian relief project. It is paid for out of oil exports. In the seven years of the programme, $61 billion worth of oil was exported. It led to $26 billion of humanitarian supplies which is $4.3 billion per year. Under UN resolutions, one was not allowed to buy food in Iraq, it had to be bought externally. That food came in through Umm Qasr. In the case of the three Kurdish directorates in the north of Iraq, the UN distributed the food directly. With the UN structure taken out completely, how is food distributed there?

If one moves to the southern centre of Iraq, which includes Baghdad and its 72% urbanised population, the food was distributed from the point of import to a number of regional warehouses. I agree with what John O'Shea said. Given the type of food involved, it cannot be stored beyond four or five weeks. In that southern centre area, there were 45,864 distribution points. These are effectively local shops where people present their ration cards. As the Ba'ath party insists on the people in the southern centre area remaining in their houses, and the area is besieged, how is it possible to arrange communications between the regional food centres and the 45,000 odd distribution points?

The estimate I have seen, and nobody seems to contest it, for replacing this set-up is bringing in 500,000 tonnes of food per month. Mr. Arnold will know that the highest figure for food moved in relief in the world was probably between Pakistan and Afghanistan and that was at 100,000 tonnes per month. The extent of the food provision problem in Iraq would be five times that of anything experienced before, with a damaged infrastructure and limited personnel.

I understand that for the process of water purification in Iraq, the major chlorine factory was located in Basra. Is the facility that provided chlorine for the entire country still intact? I saw on the horrible, biased coverage on Sky News and elsewhere a shot in which the chlorine factory was described as a chemical factory. It was claimed that these were the first weapons of mass destruction found. Does the chlorine production still exist for water purification?

Is it not a fact that both organisations are either in Kuwait or Oman with UN organisations? I support and admire both organisations in their work, but I fear they will not be able to help anybody unless the leadership of the US-British invasion forces steps back and allows a direct UN leadership role which in turn would facilitate the role of the NGOs.

It is not helpful to keep describing the oil-for-food programme as humanitarian relief. From the Iraqi government's view, the UN distributed the food directly in the three Kurdish governed areas in the north of the country. It was the Iraqi government who had a food distribution scheme in place before the sanctions and the oil for food programme. If they are asked to be taken out, how will it work if every member of the Ba'ath party is a suspected member of the Feyadeen? They are going to take out the Ba'ath party and the Iraqi government. How will it happen? Why then would the Iraqi government pump its oil and hand it to a UN agency? Is it expected to pump the oil and hand it to a UK-US led distribution point as an alternative to something it has been doing for years? This fills me with despair about the whole issue. Perhaps this committee will request direct involvement and leadership of the UN in post-conflict Iraq? This can come about only by the UK-US stepping back and allowing the international community to set up a humanitarian relief project - a food project and a separate humanitarian relief project.

Senator Norris

Deputy Michael Higgins asked many of the questions I wished to ask. He asked them with an expertise and profundity of knowledge I do not possess. I will waive my rights in that area.

I am not surprised the Allies described a chlorine factory as a chemical factory because apparently Mr. Bush and the axis of evil between London and Washington regard gas masks as weapons of mass destruction. The perversion of language that is going on is absolutely horrendous. It is impossible for this or any other committee to come to a complete realisation of a situation where, for example, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Peter Arnett, is summarily dismissed from NBC, where another major network secures the services of a convicted liar and conspirator, Oliver North, where the American administration drops the mother of all bombs on the Geneva Convention, and acts outside it, refusing to be made accountable before an international war crimes tribunal because it wants to be allowed commit precisely the same kind of war crimes it committed in Vietnam.

This is a criminal administration - let us be quite clear that even their own soldiers know it - and I salute the bravery and courage of those two young men who are going home today having refused to participate in what they, as soldiers, know are war crimes. We must be very careful to ensure humanitarian aid is not used as a fig-leaf for the further prosecution of these criminal acts. It is quite clear that is being attempted, and I find it particularly revolting that food and water are being used against the civilian population of Iraq as instruments of warfare. That is what is happening.

I was in Baghdad three years ago with Deputy Higgins and he will recall what happened when David Andrews very honourably used the word "humanitarian" and Tariq Aziz flared up. The Iraqis are a very proud people with the code of Hammurabi, the original instrument of law. They were civilised people when we were pegging mud pies at each other in the Bog of Allen. I salute the work being done by GOAL and Concern and I will support it in every way I can, but we must ensure the fig-leaf of humanitarianism is not used to provide camouflage because this is what the Americans are doing. It is morally repulsive.

I remind the committee, in light of the statement that was read out about the military conflict being brought to an end and the stability of the region being maintained, that apart altogether from those of us in Opposition in the Seanad, the Leader of the Seanad and seven members of the Government party in the Seanad acknowledged on the record that this war is illegal, immoral and unjust. I am sure they got their knuckles rapped for that, but it is on the record of the Seanad. For those reasons we must make sure we are very clear about what is happening.

Finally, regarding the assertion that we are going to try to use the UN to ensure the stability of the region is maintained, the stability of the region will not be maintained. Let us not make a pretence. Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt, said yesterday that this war would lead to 100 new Osama bin Ladens. Mr. Rumsfeld came out with so strident a political attack on Syria that the Syrian Government was, yesterday, backed into a corner and forced to come out with a public statement aligning Syria with the oppressed people of Iraq - a position I understand completely. If we do not intervene, if we do not stand up, and if Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, which is supposed to be a democracy, is allowed to go against the expressed wishes of 91% of his own people, we most certainly will see an extension of this war. The provision of humanitarian aid will not make a fish's tit's worth of difference at that point. The real situation is political. The humanitarian aspect comes into it, but do not be misled into thinking that it will be used as anything but a fig-leaf by these dangerous criminal people with whom - against the wishes of the Irish people - our Government has shamefully aligned itself.

Deputy Gregory

I thought you were forgetting about me, Chairman, but I know you would never do that.

Chairman

You asked me to give precedence to Senator Norris. It was your gesture, so I kindly did that.

Deputy Gregory

I, too, welcome the delegation. I also regard this war as illegal and criminal. Regarding the analysis presented by the two speakers, I fully support it in regard to what should happen. However, is what they have said, and what they hope for, not to a large degree wishful thinking at this stage? I ask this of the speakers in a very supportive way. The war has already dragged on longer than all the so-called experts expected, and the level of civilian casualties is likely to harden resistance, certainly in Baghdad. Without pretending to be a military expert, it would seem a long guerrilla war in Baghdad is likely.

On the second point about the governance of Iraq after the war, all the indications are that the Americans intend setting up a colonial-style administration, ruling and controlling the country. Is that not likely to have been their purpose in being there in the first instance? Do not all the indications show that the Americans and the British want to be associated with humanitarian aid and are running it chaotically and haphazardly, and will continue to do so? The scenario mentioned by Deputy Higgins, that what would be required is the US stepping back at the end of the war, is the last thing they appear to be intent on doing. Clearly, the intentions of the likes of Rumsfeld and Bush are quite the opposite.

I do not want to be pessimistic, and the speakers have far greater insight into such events than we have, but are we not facing a major humanitarian disaster down the road? All the things the speakers have said are necessary to lessen the level of disaster are just not there. The opposite is there. Resistance is very strong and the appalling military methods of the Americans in killing women and children, as we saw in the past 24 hours, are likely to lengthen the war and harden resistance. The Americans have stated they intend to control Iraq and have nominated people to do that. They are already associating themselves directly with aid, which presents the possibility of aid workers becoming legitimate targets. I will not repeat the question a third time. Thank you.

Mr. O’Shea

There is a great deal of sense in what Deputy Gregory said. The one word that was not used was the word "courage", to which I alluded earlier. If ever there was a time in the history of the United Nations for the top man to show his colours, it is now. If he decides not to show his colours, maybe the members should have a meeting and decide to wind up the United Nations. They wound up the League of Nations. If the United Nations cannot stand up for the free world or be the voice of the down-trodden and take on whichever major power wants to do something for its own reasons, then there is no United Nations, it is not a substantial organisation, it is no bloody good.

Senator Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. O’Shea

Ireland has got to ask itself as well, as members of the United Nations, how much we care. The Taoiseach should be on an aeroplane tonight to meet Kofi Annan and ask him directly whether he will take on those two powerful nations and tell them, in the name of the Irish people - to make the point that Deputy Mitchell made - that it is absolutely right that the Dáil should discuss it, because the Irish people care, and presumably the Deputies care too. We are a nation with a history of caring. Are we to stand back and allow the scenario, which the Deputy paints, to happen? I hope it does not happen. We cannot allow it without at least complaining. Forget the Shannon stop-over. It is a tiny element in comparison with the picture the Deputy paints. If that comes to fruition, the world will be a sorry place.

This is the time, therefore, to ask the United Nations Security Council if it is prepared to let those two warring factions know it will run the aid programme. The question is very simple. The resources are there, and there should not be a humanitarian tragedy. As Mr. Arnold and I know from long years of experience, and as I said earlier, such a resource has never been available to the aid community. To save face, I can assure you, the two military groups will commandeer the Queen Mary or whatever it takes to get food into Iraq. They will not take criticism for the war and for failing to feed the people. It would be infinitely better if it were done by the United Nations and the aid community. A massive humanitarian tragedy on the scale of Ethiopia, Mozambique, southern Sudan, Angola or even Afghanistan can and will be averted, however; of that I am absolutely certain.

The other issue raised concerned who is in control and who will make the decisions. That is critical because the world would be turned on its head if the United Nations allowed any nation to decide it would feed 16 million or 20 million people. That is Ireland's role. It is not a matter of the Government giving money; that is not the issue. It is about moral courage, and we must ask ourselves if we have it.

Mr. Arnold

Tony Gregory has got to the heart of the matter. If the three scenarios he paints are borne out, we have all the conditions for a major disaster. If anything has happened in the past two weeks that has perhaps given cause for concern, it is the realisation that this war could last a great deal longer than at first thought. Much of the thinking and planning seemed to be predicated on its being effectively over in fewer than ten days. Now that will clearly not be the case. There will be a reaction, even in the United States, if there are more incidents involving serious loss of civilian life because that will begin to change the context. It is a question of the relationship between the military and the politicians. At some stage, more pressure will have to be exerted to change tactics. The United Nations' role is clearly a key issue. There is no sign in the short-term that the United States will change its policy, either militarily or regarding how they envisage the longer-term role of the United Nations. It seems the United States wants to run a post-Saddam administration.

It all comes back to the international community. Does it have the means to force a change, and how can that be done most effectively? I agree with Mr. O'Shea that Ireland must find a clear voice on the issue.

Deputy O’Donnell

I welcome the delegation and agree with both representatives of the two humanitarian agencies operating out of Ireland that, apart from the civilians who have been killed and the loss of human life that we have seen since the conflict began, the biggest tragedy regarding the world order has been the emasculation of the United Nations. Ireland was centrally involved in the negotiation of resolution 1441, was a member of the Security Council just after 9/11, and tried to moderate the excesses of America's response at the time and, in its Presidency of the Security Council, keep to the fore the humanitarian issues involved. Right through the prosecution of the war against Afghanistan and after, Ireland was a voice for humanitarianism and was aware of the implications for civilians and the vulnerable population. Through our rhetoric, advocacy and donations, we kept to the fore the issue of civilian casualties.

Talking now about the scenarios regarding the humanitarian situation in Iraq, including sanitation and food needs, I fully accept what the delegations have said. This war is expensive. The big countries, the United States and the United Kingdom, have provided an advance for food and water needs and there is no shortage of money, but frankly that is not the point. Rather it is that the biggest tragedy and the biggest humanitarian issue that challenges us all is the loss of civilian life. That is caused by the continued prosecution of the war, the pounding of Baghdad and other centres in Iraq and the risk to civilians.

As Mr. O'Shea said, it is not just about money but about asking the United Nations to recoup its authority. That must happen, and that is where Ireland comes in. That authority has been lost and it is a tragedy for world affairs. This large-scale conflict has the capacity to have a major impact on the Middle East and distract us from the tragedy of Africa, where 30 million people are starving. I agree with the delegation, and I am glad that the opportunity was given to it to come in and put its authority behind the view that Ireland must ask - insist - that the United Nations find its authority and voice again in this situation.

If humanitarian corridors must be negotiated, the United Nations will have to monitor and negotiate that and act as a go-between with the Iraqis, the United States and the United Kingdom. That is not being done, and everyone has been thrown into an acceptance of the inevitability of the war continuing. Ireland should not fall into that trap, and we should be very vocal in garnering other countries' support towards bringing the power and authority of the United Nations back into world conversation. They existed before the United States and the United Kingdom decided to act.

It is particularly important because, like it or not - most of us do not - this war is being prosecuted under the aegis of resolution 1441, a United Nations resolution. Some of us dispute it, but those prosecuting the war are relying on a United Nations resolution. It introduces a whole cloud of dubious legality into the prosecution of the war. All of us who were part of the negotiation of resolution 1441 are in some way connected with this subsequent war, though many of us do not support it or have serious qualms about how it is being prosecuted and the sense of it. I agree with the delegation's call for the primacy of the United Nations, and I believe Ireland should be more vocal at the United Nations. I am sure the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will listen to this committee's views. Later we will have a debate in the House, fortunately tabled by the Opposition, to allow it to discuss the humanitarian situation and the constitutional legality of this war. I look forward to that debate this evening.

Ms O’Mahony

Perhaps I might talk about some of Deputy Higgins's earlier questions concerning the current amount of food available.

Deputy M. Higgins

I forgot one thing. Perhaps you might say a word about what came out of the Geneva conference on 14 and 15 February, at which all the humanitarian agencies met to discuss discreetly what they would do in the event of war.

Ms O’Mahony

I do not have information from that conference. Before the war there were 430,000 tonnes of food per month being distributed in Iraq. That is a phenomenal amount of food in any terms and it shows the sophistication and the capabilities within the country to handle such large programmes of food distribution. There are some early indications that these were distributed, as Deputy Higgins mentioned, through 46,000 distribution centres dotted around the country and that in many places these distribution centres were run by members of the Ba'ath Party. Early information out of Umm Qasr suggests that the four distribution centres there have been dismantled for the moment because the members of the party that were running it have been deemed corrupt by the local population, who are Shi'ite. The Ba'ath Party members are Sunni and, being imposed from the outside, are not really members of the community.

When we are moving forward one of the things we will look at is how to get these distribution centres back up and running because the bones of them are there. There were efforts before the war started to do several months' distribution at a time. There are indications within households that there can be up to six months' worth of food stored in some of these houses and - to address what Deputy Mitchell said - that they can store up to six months of grain at a time. They have developed their methods over the years through burying it in sealed containers and so on. There are, therefore, indications that cereal food needs may not be urgent initially.

This comes back to the point Senator Norris made in terms of the humanitarian aid being a fig leaf. It is more than that, it is being used as an instrument for the hearts and minds programme. There is no targeting, there is no taking into account vulnerable populations, it is just a show of distribution to whoever gets it and to be viewed as the good guys coming in distributing food. From a humanitarian point of view we are concerned about this. It is a misuse of humanitarian aid and as agencies we would look for the humanitarian space to be able to target properly so that the vulnerable groups are addressed through any humanitarian intervention.

Chairman

At this stage I thank both Goal and Concern for very interesting insights into the problems and the issues of humanitarian aid in Iraq. I tried at the beginning to set out in a general way the importance of bringing the UN directly into the picture at this stage. One of the terms I used was "innocent victims". I think Ms O'Mahony used a better term, "vulnerable" citizens and someone else used the word "oppressed" but maybe we will settle for "vulnerable". That might keep everyone happy at the end of the day. In any event, thank you. The contributions have been very helpful and on behalf of all the members I thank the speakers for attending.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.04 p.m. and adjourned at 4.24 p.m. sine die.