A motion on recent events in Iraq has been submitted by Senator Norris and Deputy Michael D. Higgins. I call on Senator Norris to move the motion.
Foreign Conflicts: Motion.
I move:
That the foreign affairs committee, in the light of recent revelations concerning the use of white phosphorus and the disclosure of widespread and severe torture in Iraq, calls for the establishment of an international inquiry into:
(a) the attack by US forces on Fallujah, and
(b) the use of torture against both military and civilian personnel in Iraq.
An amendment to the motion has been submitted by Deputy Mulcahy. I call on Deputy Mulcahy to move the amendment.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and to substitute the following:
"the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs
(a) notes with concern the reports of the use of white phosphorus by elements of the multinational force currently in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions;
(b) condemns any use of chemical weapons in Iraq or elsewhere and the use of any conventional weapons in a manner which is contrary to international law;
(c) notes the intention of the Government of Iraq to investigate conditions of detention following the recent deeply disturbing discovery of 170 detainees in an Interior Ministry building and supports the call by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that, in light of the apparently systematic nature and magnitude of the problems with the system of detention, the Iraqi authorities should consider calling for an international inquiry;
(d) calls for full investigation of all allegations of torture, ill-treatment and other abuses of human rights in Iraq;
(e) condemns the indiscriminate use of violence against civilians and government officials in Iraq which has caused such terrible suffering in recent months and is aimed at creating further divisions between the communities in Iraq;
(f) welcomes the outcome of the 15 October referendum which approved the new constitution for Iraq and looks forward to the democratic elections on 15 December for a sovereign Iraqi Assembly and Government;
(g) notes the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1637 on 8 November 2005 which, responding to a request from the Government of Iraq, reaffirmed the authorisation for the multinational force and decided to extend its mandate until 31 December 2006;
(h) expresses the hope that sufficient progress will be made in the political transition of Iraq to enable the democratically elected, sovereign government to assume full responsibility for security and stability in its country at the earliest possible date;
(i) expresses the hope that in the near future all UN authorised forces in Iraq will be in a position to leave Iraq and leave the running of Iraq to the sovereign people of Iraq as represented by their democratically elected politicians.
In accordance with procedure, the committee is obliged to dispose of the amendment first. I will, therefore, call on Deputy Mulcahy to speak to the amendment. Thereafter, the debate may deal with the substance of both the motion and the amendment. At the conclusion of the debate the amendment will be decided by one question put to the committee.
I thank Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris for tabling the motion which is extremely timely. It is important not just for Ireland but for the international community that there be an extensive debate on Iraq. Of course, the origins of the intervention are controversial. Some say they date from a few years ago, others that they date from the end of the first Iraqi war and the war reparations and alleged non-access to weapons facilities and so forth arising from it, but there is no need to repeat the arguments here.
From the public's perspective, this issue affects us in Ireland in two ways. First — quite legitimately — there is the issue of which aircraft are going through and what is happening at Shannon Airport. Again, there are two legitimate sides to the argument. Second, there is the issue of what is happening in Iraq, the terrible attacks and the killing of civilians——
By the forces.
This is a matter of concern to everyone. On any objective reading, this is a year in which there has been substantial progress in Iraq. First, democratic elections were held on 30 January. The transitional Iraqi Government under Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari was formed in May. It included representatives of all the major groups in the assembly, including six members from the Sunni community. After this there was a lengthy negotiating process in the assembly which resulted in the adoption of a draft constitution at the end of August which was approved in a national referendum on 15 October by a margin of 79% to 21%. There is, however, a continuing concern about the lack of engagement by elements or parts of the Sunni community in the constitutional process. Fresh elections are due to take place on 15 December and one of the Sunni parties intends to participate. For those who want a free, independent, sovereign Iraq or any non-Iraqi occupying forces in Iraq, this is a year in which there has been significant progress.
The failure of the mandated forces in Iraq to set a deadline for their withdrawal is somewhat disappointing. At this stage, given the level of political progress to date, it would not be unreasonable for those forces to state a deadline of one or two years could be met in all circumstances. There has been much progress in training the Iraqi army but, unfortunately, there does not appear to have been the same degree of progress in training the Iraqi police force.
It is correct that on Sunday, 13 November, US forces searched an Iraqi Interior Ministry interrogation centre in Baghdad and found approximately 170 prisoners, at least some of whom appeared to have been severely beaten, while others were under-nourished. The prisoners were Sunni Iraqis and foreign nationals who had been detained as suspected insurgents. The committee must express its abhorrence of torture in any circumstances. The amendment follows through on this. It is not a question of dictating a standard of behaviour in a civilised society from our cosy desks hundreds of thousands of miles away from Iraq. In a widely broadcast series of interviews yesterday former President MaryRobinson made it clear that torture could not be an ambiguous concept that wavered from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but must be solidly condemned wherever found.
Iraq's Interior Minister has admitted that abuse took place but only in a small number of cases and will not be tolerated. The media reports and photographs have been a serious setback for the domestic and international image of the new Iraqi authorities and played into the hands of elements of the Sunni community which oppose a new constitutional framework for a democratic Iraq. The UN Human Rights Commissioner, Louise Arbor, has suggested that in view of the damage done Iraq should consider asking for an international inquiry to be established to examine the treatment of detainees. It is important that Iraq calls for such an inquiry into the abuse of detainees. Here the amendment respectfully differs from the motion.
I wish to refer to specific items included in the motion and the amendment. One of my problems with the motion is the phrase "the disclosure of widespread and severe torture in Iraq". While I accept there has been torture, I am not sure it has been widespread. Perhaps Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris might inform us on the issue.
I also have a problem with the section that "calls for the establishment of an international inquiry into (a) the attack by US forces on Fallujah and (b) the use of torture against both military and civilian personnel in Iraq". An international inquiry, the impetus for which comes from outside Iraq, would not be good at this stage. Given the progress made in 2005 in constitutional development, such an inquiry should be called for from within Iraq. The time has come for less interference in its affairs and more development of its structures and society.
My amendment reads:
(a) notes with concern the reports of the use of white phosphorous by elements of the multinational force currently in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions;
(b) condemns any use of chemical weapons in Iraq or elsewhere and the use of any conventional weapons in a manner which is contrary to international law [I hope my colleagues will see this as very strong, plain and forthright];
(c) notes the intention of the Government of Iraq to investigate conditions of detention following the recent deeply disturbing discovery of 170 detainees in an Interior Ministry building and supports the call by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that, in light of the apparently systematic nature and magnitude of the problems with the system of detention, the Iraqi authorities should consider calling for an international inquiry [I again stress that it should be the Iraqi authorities, supported by us, which should call for an international inquiry];
(d) calls for full investigation of all allegations of torture, ill-treatment and other abuses of human rights in Iraq;
(e) condemns the indiscriminate use of violence against civilians and government officials in Iraq which has caused such terrible suffering in recent months and is aimed at creating further divisions between the communities in Iraq [Here I refer to the recent bombings];
(f) welcomes the outcome of the 15 October referendum which approved the new constitution for Iraq and looks forward to the democratic elections on 15 December for a sovereign Iraqi Assembly and Government [Nobody could object to this];
(g) notes the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1637 on 8 November 2005 which, responding to a request from the Government of Iraq, reaffirmed the authorisation for the multinational force and decided to extend its mandate until 31 December 2006 [It is important that the Security Council was responding to a request from the Government of Iraq as constituted stemming from the democratic elections held on 30 November];
(h) expresses the hope that sufficient progress will be made in the political transition of Iraq to enable the democratically elected, sovereign government to assume full responsibility for security and stability in its country at the earliest possible date;
(i) expresses the hope that in the near future all UN authorised forces in Iraq will be in a position to leave Iraq and leave the running of Iraq to the sovereign people of Iraq as represented by their democratically elected politicians.
I admit that the last paragraph is aspirational. I hope my amendment adds to motion and elaborates on the motion rather than overriding it. Its tone is meant to emphasise the point that significant progress has been made in Iraq, that there has been torture which has been condemned, that there has been the illegal use of chemical weapons which is condemned by the international community, and that in the near future we would like to see all foreign forces leave Iraq, leaving its people to decide the country's destiny. I strongly commend the amendments to my colleagues and the Chairman.
I seek the Chairman's assistance on a technical matter. Is it usual practice for a motion such as this to be referred either by the Chairman or committee staff to the Department of Foreign Affairs for comment or amendment?
The normal procedure is to request briefing material from the Department of Foreign Affairs. That material has been circulated to members. That is all we had to do.
Was my motion forwarded to Iveagh House for a briefing on the issue?
Yes, where it is relevant to do so. The briefing material which includes background notes has been circulated to members.
That is welcome. I ask the question because this committee is valuable as it is non-partisan and its members assess issues on their merits, not by direction from Iveagh House. I was involved with Deputy Michael D. Higgins in establishing the first Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which came about because we wanted foreign affairs policy to be accountable to the people. The committee acted as a ginger group. The Government wisely felt that, whatever the drawbacks in having a committee with members from all parties duly selected, it was better than one run by Deputy Michael Higgins and me. One could not tell in which direction such a committee would go. I am sure Deputy Mulcahy will agree that a good facet of this committee is that it has been non-partisan.
The motion was forwarded to the committee some time ago. Due to an error, for which this committee has no responsibility, it was sent initially to the Sub-Committee on Human Rights. It has since been put on the long finger in a number of ways. I tabled a similar motion in the Seanad. I am grateful to Deputy Mulcahy for making the Shannon Airport issue part of this discussion, particularly its use for the "Guantanamo Express" and rendering people for the purposes of torture. I intend to briefly skirt around the issue raised by the Deputy.
Is the Senator coming to the motion in his name?
Yes.
While the joint committee has always been non-partisan, as the Senator has noted, it has also been informed. On every issue it receives background notes and updated information from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
That is very helpful.
That is all that is involved.
I do not think it is quite so.
I can clarify that matter.
The amendment originated from the Department, as I am sure Deputy Mulcahy will confirm.
The Senator will have a chance to reply. He is making an allegation, about which I wish to be clear. Any member is entitled, in his or her own right, to table an amendment. The Chair has not been involved in the preparation of an amendment.
I have no quarrel with the Chairman who I am sure will withdraw the inaccurate statement that I have made an allegation; asking a question is not the same as making an allegation. I asked a question and have received a reply from the Chair. It was not an allegation.
I am pleased to hear it. The normal procedure was followed and the motion taken as quickly as it could have been. To facilitate this debate we asked members to come here at 1 p.m. knowing that this would be difficult for some and that some would have to stay late.
Absolutely. I was asked if I would facilitate the committee by putting back the debate for a few weeks. I stated I would not. That is why we are meeting at this time.
I wish to be clear about the information provided.
I was asked if the debate on the motion could be postponed and stated in reply that I would prefer if it was taken today.
As far as the secretariat is concerned, the normal information was requested.
That is clarification to a certain degree. I understand Deputy Mulcahy will clarify the matter further later.
Paragraph (a) of the amendment is inaccurate and I am sure Deputy Mulcahy will not mind if it is amended. It reads: "...by elements of the multinational force currently in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council Resolutions". The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, described the war as illegal. It was also described as such by the Leader of Seanad Éireann. The forces are now in Iraq as a result of a retrospective motion; they are not in the country pursuant to a UN resolution. This inaccurate statement should be withdrawn.
Paragraph (b) deals with the general condemnation of the use of chemical weapons anywhere. This is a bland point and my problem with it is that the focus is blurred. I am discussing a specific series of actions which greatly concerns many, including people in America who include former President Jimmy Carter. I say this because I do not want anybody to suggest we are anti-American. If former President Carter can state these actions are not indicative of the America he knew, with torture openly espoused, endorsed and used, and that rendition presents a problem, we would be pusillanimous if we did not take this view.
Apart from paragraphs (a) and (b), the amendment is taken from the amendment tabled to the motion in my name during Private Members' Business in the Seanad.
Paragraph (i) is different.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to reply.
There may be one change, but six of the nine paragraphs are identical to the amendment tabled to the relevant motion during Private Members' time in the Seanad. I make this point because when the issue was briefly discussed previously, there was an opportunity before the discussion was terminated for Fianna Fáil Members to indicate their preference. They indicated they had no problem with the motion. When it was discussed, individual Members, independent of an direction from Iveagh House or the Minister, had no problem with it.
Deputy Mulcahy spoke about getting Iraqi authorities, such as they are, to inquire about this issue. There would be considerable difficulties with this. The Deputy himself has stated he would be concerned if the behaviour was considered to be general. The report on the incident in the basement of the Iraqi building was accepted. The responsible Iraqi Minister indicated that she found it impossible to investigate such matters, that such behaviour was systemic. If the record of Seanad Éireann is consulted, one will see I provided very considerable evidence of widespread torture in Iraq and its systemic nature. When the Minister responsible states she is being blocked and stymied at every avenue and cannot properly investigate, although she is aware of widespread torture, it would be foolish to expect those in charge of a system under which torture is widespread to investigate themselves. This vitiates a cardinal principle of law, that an accused person does not stand in judgment of himself or herself. The authorities in Iraq stand accused of, at least, tolerating this torture and being involved in it in many cases. This is not just waterboarding, which Vice-President Cheney appears to believe is legitimate. This is a practice, developed by the Gestapo, whereby people are drowned, medically resuscitated with their lungs bursting and then interrogated. Apparently, according to Mr. Cheney, this is tolerable. The practices engaged in are even worse than this and people have died. In the motion I call for an international and, therefore, independent investigation into the use of white phosphorus, which has been denied.
Three weeks ago I spoke to Mr. Harry Cohen, MP, who showed me correspondence on the matter which he discussed with me. He had asked about the use of white phosphorus and been given an inaccurate reply by a British Minister, Mr. Adam Ingram, who had been lied to by the United States authorities at the highest level, as he had to acknowledge in a letter I have seen. The use of white phosphorus was denied categorically and Mr. Ingram had to apologise on the basis that he had misled the House of Commons because he had not been told the truth.
There is also the question of the attack on Fallujah and the damage and injuries caused to civilians. Deputy Mulcahy correctly expressed his abhorrence and discusses in the amendment the attacks on civilians, obviously carried out by militants. However, I am highlighting the actions of sovereign governments and the so-called coalition forces, their responsibility for the deaths of 100,000 civilians and their deliberate attempts to conceal this fact. Reports in The New York Times which can hardly be described as an anti-American organ indicate that the attack on the hospital, for example, was aimed at stopping leaks about the number of civilian casualties. It is worrying when governments which claim to defend our ethos become involved in such practices and attempt to prevent information leaking out about them. Making these allegations against people intimately connected with this country is both serious and painful. As many of us have friends and relations in the United States, we are part of its system and share many of its values. However, these values have been betrayed and traduced and if we are afraid to say so, we have surrendered the pass.
I will not linger as I wish to leave time for my colleagues who have important points to make. I accept that paragrah (a) of the amendment represents a welcome advance, for which I am grateful to Deputy Mulcahy. Most of the remaining parts of the amendment come from a document that originated in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am concerned about this because we should make up our own minds on the matter.
Deputy Mulcahy raised the issue of Shannon Airport which is not mentioned in the motion but which I will continue to revisit in the Seanad. The issue is very clear and the argument does not have two sides. One of the Gulfstream 5 jets that landed at the airport has been used for no other purpose than rendition. Such flights have been condemned in a report from the Swedish Parliament because of the kidnapping of two people in Stockholm Airport who were rendered to Egypt where they were tortured.
Before she left the United States, the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, stated the United States expected its allies to believe it. Why should they? There has been a consistent pattern of lies, denials and eventual acceptance that particular allegations are true. A parliamentary committee found that a Gulfstream 5 jet had been used for rendition flights. Aeroplanes which regularly land at Shannon Airport have been used for the filthy purpose of extraordinary rendition — one should note the euphemism — for which the Government is liable under international criminal law. This is the advice given to a committee of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. The committee asked whether it would cause a legal problem if such an aeroplane merely refuelled at a UK airport and the official reply was that such a practice would make the UK Government complicit in an international crime. That is what we are dealing with and why I am so grateful to Deputy Mulcahy for raising the issue which I will pursue in the Seanad.
I welcome the excellent contribution made by Deputy Mulcahy but I am concerned we do not lose or blur the focus. While I welcome paragraph (a) of the amendment, I wonder whether it would be possible for the committee to come up with a composite motion which would cater for both sides. It is important to look at the way in which the Department of Foreign Affairs attempts to control the business of this committee.
I wrote an article in 1982 for Studies which traced the history of our attempts to found a foreign affairs committee. The former Senator, James Dooge, was the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time. In the article I quoted from an interesting debate in the Seanad. Senator Dooge had attended a conference of the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament and quoted with approval the views of an individual by the name of Dr. Steerkamp who believed foreign policy should be left to the diplomats, unless members of the public with egalitarian and moralistic tendencies should become involved. The Fianna Fáil Party in the Seanad which had promised to support my resolution decided to abstain, while Fine Gael voted against it. The Labour Party and the university Senators voted for it. In total, approximately 23 Senators abstained, 21 voted against the proposal, while 12 voted in favour. This demonstrates the difficulties involved in establishing a foreign affairs committee that would operate at a distance from the mandarins of the day. I am glad I produced a written record in the light of the information given by Senator Norris.
I wish to clarify a number of points in this important motion. The fundamental point is that it is in everyone's interests to defend international law. To this end, I welcome the speech made by Deputy Mulcahy. International law is under serious threat in a number of circumstances. While I do not wish to be pedantic, I must correct paragraph (b) of the amendment. White phosphorus is not classed as a chemical weapon in the UN chemical weapons convention. This is enormously important because all signatories to the convention automatically signed up to allow the use of chemical weapons in any circumstances. White phosphorus is referred to as an incendiary weapon. I will not go into the gruesome details as to whether a person implodes gradually or whether his or her flesh is burned off following exposure to white phosphorus. I understand the Third Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons has not been signed by the United States, which is, therefore, outside the disciplines of the convention.
One turns to how this matter has been handled. The use of an incendiary weapon in conditions where civilians may be present is a clear breach of the convention. States have a clear and irrevocable obligation to ensure that where incendiary weapons such as white phosphorus are used, there is no possibility of civilians being present. Matters were not helped by denial. It was stated the United States did not own white phosphorus, that it did not use it, that white phosphorus was used for the illumination of a point of conflict and, after news leaks, that white phosphorus was only used against combatants.
There were breaches in every circumstance explicitly protected by the convention. There is no doubt civilians were killed in the attack on Fallujah and that white phosphorus was not used simply to illuminate a conflict zone but, rather, against enemy combatants. We must conclude, therefore, that there is a serious question mark over conditions of trust.
There has been a fundamental change with regard to the use of torture since we tabled the motion. I constantly ask when Ireland will sign the optional protocol to the convention on torture, which would create the capacity for an external body to visit us. Not only does the convention require us not to be involved in torture but under the protocol which we have not signed, there is a positive obligation not to assist in torture in any way and to work to prevent it taking place anywhere. Even though we have not signed the protocol, we have serious obligations under international law. I am talking about a United Nations convention against torture and two European conventions, for which the Council of Europe is responsible, namely, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Two fundamental changes are suggested. There is the suggestion of those surrounding Vice-President Cheney that what is taking place is something less than torture. Deputy Mulcahy also adverted to this. All sides are agreed on that point. The European convention is not just against torture, however narrowly defined, but "inhuman or degrading treatment". We heard en passant in the two contributions made so far that the Council of Europe monitored its conventions through the appointed committee. In reply to questions to Ministers the Government stated the Council of Europe’s monitoring committee had contacted it. The committee may seek assurances, for example, on the use of the CIA aeroplanes in Shannon Airport. How can we co-operate fully with the committee if we never inspect what is on an aeroplane or seek to discover the purpose of aeroplanes landing and taking off? Even the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, said this last night on television. This raises another fundamental question: where does one stand on the general concept, taking into account what I have said, of “extraordinary rendition” as an instrument of international security? We can leave that issue aside for the moment because we will be able to pursue it next week in questions to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Even if there is no one on an aeroplane when it lands at Shannon Airport, if we allow ourselves to become part of a flight plan, we inescapably place ourselves within the ambit of the illegal act of extraordinary rendition.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to the comment of the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, that if one starts to redefine or narrow the definition of torture, surely one damages one's acceptability and trust in respect of the other matter. This is akin to the question of the use of white phosphorus in certain circumstances.
I am not an international lawyer but I read the texts. It was my business as a political scientist to know something about them and I know what a positive obligation is. How can a positive obligation be defined as other than ensuring one is able to give something based on fact rather than the acceptance of a verbal assurance from sources which have systematically damaged their credibility? In this way they have politicised human rights law such that it has become a project of some kind.
On the amendment before us, I have no difficulty in condemning the use of chemical weapons which are prohibited absolutely. Incendiary weapons need to be added as they are outside the disciplines suggested in the international conventions. I have dealt with the issue covered in paragraph (d). I would like to retain the usage of the Council of Europe in respect of allegations of torture, namely, "torture, inhuman or degrading treatment". We are talking about appalling activity. I know something about the issue of torture through cases with which I dealt 20 years ago when techniques of torture were transferred from Vietnam to Chile under General Pinochet. Torture techniques were exported. In all these cases I prefer the wider usage of the words "torture, inhuman or degrading treatment".
On paragraph (e), while I respect Deputy Mulcahy's views — he has been at pains to suggest how much he respects mine — he will excuse me if I differ with him on the referendum held on 15 October. Two states in which the population is predominantly Sunni voted against the constitution in insufficient numbers to be a blocking mechanism. It is possible that in December, after the elections are held, this issue will be revisited which may bring about inclusion of the Sunni population. It is important to realise there was a fundamental point at stake which was at the root of the constitutional consultation. The Sunni objection is not that of insurgents but concerns a unitary state. The issue upon which the debate in the two states took place was federalism versus a unitary state.
In respect of paragraph (g) and the circumstances of Resolution 1637, these resolutions are of their time. The achievement of the vote at the United Nations was based on current circumstances. There has been no suggestion one can reach back and use it as a rationalisation of the original actions without a UN Security Council mandate. This creates the practical problem for international human rights observers of how to define when forces are operating under the new mandate and when they are residual to the illegal invasion. In what circumstances have those who invaded illegally without a mandate made themselves right ex post facto by a resolution of some kind? That is not what happened or the purpose of the original motion which immediately preceded the invasion, Resolution 1441. When it was announced to the Dáil and the Seanad, the Taoiseach referred to it as a motion that achieved peace. Within weeks it was used as a pretext for invasion by others who wanted to construe it differently. That is history, but these resolutions do not put an action right retrospectively.
On the expressed hope, I do not want the endless conflict in Iraq to continue or there to be further loss of life on any side. I have visited Iraq four times, before 1991, during the period sanctions were imposed, before this war and in times when it was stable under Saddam's oppressive rule. I certainly share the aspiration for the future of Iraq, but there is a long way to go in achieving this. One cannot slide away from obligations under international law. It is a sad day if a country that claims it has friendly relations with another is in danger of losing that friendship if it asks a simple question. Our questions must be answered to show us international law is not being broken. How can such a request be regarded as a non-friendly act?
There is overwhelming support among the public to have these questions answered factually. In the case of Shannon Airport, they can only be answered by way of an examination of what is taking place on aeroplanes. In the case of torture, they will only be answered when torture is redefined to include degrading and inhuman treatment of prisoners and so forth but that will only come about when we make clear demands as a state that wants to see international law upheld. It is our sole protection. Small countries benefit from international law, even more so than large powers.
It is a pity there is a division on the motion. On the last occasion when there was an attempt to move it I objected to it being taken without notice on the day and asked that it be put back on the agenda. There was support from all sides for it. At the time the question was about the procedures adopted. I am sorry I did not ignore them and allow the motion to be taken as it would have received unanimous support. I now regret the change of mind on the part of Government members. I thought we could be adult enough to deal with this tragic and serious issue and not divide on it. However, these are the facts of political life.
There is no doubt white phosphorus was used in Iraq. As a chemical technologist, I am familiar with using it in laboratory conditions and understand the horrific effect it can have on a person's body. If one gets it on one's hand, the skin has to be excised to get rid of it. If it comes in contact with human beings in a war, it is kaput for them. From the evidence available, it is obvious it was used in the November 2004 attack on Fallujah. Darrin Mortenson, a reporter embedded with US marines, wrote about the matter for a local Californian newspaper. He graphically described what he called the "Shake 'N Bake" procedures adopted.
The debate about white phosphorus centres on whether it is deemed to be a chemical weapon. I describe it as a weapon on the edge. Such weapons are outlawed by the chemical weapons convention to which the United States is a party. The convention is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which is based in The Hague. Its spokesperson, Mr. Peter Kaiser, when asked if white phosphorus was banned by the CWC, stated:
No, it is not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use. If, on the other hand, the toxic properties of white phosphorus [the ones I described] are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.
Eyewitness accounts prove the use of white phosphorus at Fallujah. As a result, there will have to be an international investigation into what happened. It is a dirty and nasty war for all sides. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise this war because, in accordance with the UN charter, force should only have been used as a last resort. Senator Edward Kennedy said it was the wrong war at the wrong time. It is a wrong war at any time. However, after the events of 11 September 2001, the United States was hurting. That hurt has prevented it from allowing the United Nations and Dr. Blix to take their course. If Dr. Blix and his colleagues had been given space and time, there would subsequently have been a UN Security Council decision one way or the other. However, the war went ahead without authorisation.
The Fine Gael Party supported the 1991 Iraq war because it had United Nations support but this war is different because it does not have a UN mandate. In that context, how can it be claimed that an aeroplane full of military equipment passing through Shannon Airport does not contribute to, if not represent participation in, war activity? In the Dáil debate on the war Deputy Kenny said that to allow traffic through Shannon Airport would betray our commitment to the United Nations. The passage through the airport has been raised by several members.
It is estimated there have been 38 landings of CIA-chartered aeroplanes in Ireland since 2002. It would be intolerable if it were shown that Irish facilities had been used covertly to transfer prisoners to countries where they would be subject to illegal forms of interrogation, torture or ill treatment. As a fundamental principle, the Government must make it absolutely clear that the use by any state of any Irish facility for the transfer of prisoners from and to any state must be in accordance with Irish and European law. The covert transfer of detainees cannot be supported under any circumstances.
Ireland has important legal obligations to ensure this does not take place at any time on our territory. I acknowledge the firm assurances given by the US Administration that Shannon Airport has never been used for rendition flights. I welcome that statement because Ireland and the United Sates historically have long commercial and political ties. However, such is the level of concern about this issue that it would helpful for the US ambassador to attend the committee to discuss the matter. There is a precedent for such a move. Rather than have a debate in the Seanad, there must be a more hands-on approach to the issue by the committee.
The Seanad will move towards a more hands-on approach, particularly given today's developments.
The European Union has made contact with the US Administration to seek information on the possible existence of secret prisons or detention centres within the Union. This is a matter of grave concern to us. All details, if the allegations are proved true, must be placed in the public arena. We have a responsibility to ensure Irish facilities are not used for the covert transfer of prisoners. We also have a broader responsibility to ensure the European Union is not supporting any system of secret detention or network of secret prisons. The Guantanamo Bay model of detention is unacceptable to us and runs contrary to our principles of justice. It must not be imported and, for this reason, I will support the motion as originally tabled. I ask for a meeting of minds on this fundamental issue on which we should not be divided politically. I propose that the meeting suspend for a few moments to try to come to some accommodation. We should not divide on the motion.
I advise members at this stage that we must begin discussing another item on the agenda by 2.30 p.m.
As Deputy Allen noted, when we discussed these issues at our previous meeting I regarded the motion tabled by Deputy Michael Higgins and Senator Norris as worthy of support. Deputy Mulcahy has made a valid point on the use of the word "widespread" as it is probably not accurate. The reference to the use of severe torture is clearly accurate, as demonstrated by the use of white phosphorus to which Deputy Allen alluded. The people of Iraq who experienced severe torture under Saddam Hussein have faced further torture since the attack was launched in 2003.
Language has been terribly abused since the introduction of Resolution 1441 and during the period when Mr. Hans Blix worked on the Iraq issue. While I do not wish to address the history in detail, as Mary Robinson has stated people are not defining issues in the way one would normally expect. The abuse of language has been unfortunate.
I, too, hope we will reach some form of an agreement on the motion. As Senator Norris noted, the Seanad has already debated the issue. I appreciate the Senator's decision to table a Seanad motion for which I had considerable sympathy, although I did not vote for it owing to the Whip system. Perhaps we could draft a motion on which all members can agree because I also disagree with some aspects of the amendment tabled by Deputy Mulcahy, particularly with regard to Security Council resolutions.
It may be a terrible analogy but during a report on the Meath county football convention last night someone asked whether a way could be found to agree on a motion without holding a vote in Navan. Oddly enough, the convention decided not to vote on a resolution which contained nine clauses. Deputy Mulcahy's amendment contains nine sections, including an interesting one which notes that "in the near future all UN authorised forces in Iraq will be in a position to leave Iraq". The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Treacy, did not mention such a withdrawal during the Seanad debate but referred instead to a phased withdrawal before the end of 2006. The amendment may be somewhat presumptuous in implying that United Nations forces will leave Iraq.
Many of us warned what would happen if the invasion proceeded. As it transpired, the war has ended in tears. Will any decision to withdraw forces in the near future result in a civil war and catastrophe, particularly in light of PresidentTalabani's statements on a phased withdrawal? I do not propose to dwell on the issue but I hope we will find a motion on which all members agree.
On Deputy Allen's point that I am somehow being partisan on this issue, that is not the case. I was not consulted about the original motion and if I had been consulted, I would have made an input and tried to agree on a composite motion. For this reason, I believed it behoved me to table a more comprehensive motion, albeit perhaps not as telling and to the point as that tabled by Senator Norris and Deputy Michael Higgins.
As Senator Norris pointed out, paragraph (a) of the amendment is stronger than the wording of the motion as the latter does not express concern about or condemn the use of white phosphorus.
It does.
It does not refer to white phosphorus.
The motion includes the line that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, "in the light of recent revelations concerning the use of white phosphorus . . .".
Yes, but the Senator must accept that the motion does not comment on the use of white phosphorus, whereas paragraph (a) of the amendment states the committee "notes with concern the reports of the use of white phosphorus". As the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, stated in the Seanad, white phosphorus is not outlawed under the chemical weapons convention. If it were illegal under the convention, it would be easy for the joint committee to condemn its use but the best advice available is that this is not the case.
As a point of fact, the use of white phosphorus is illegal in certain applications. If it is used for illumination or smoke cover, it is legal but it is clearly illegal when used against civilians. Eyewitness reports indicate this occurred. It is also illegal under United States domestic law, namely, under the rules of the military handbook.
It is illegal under the protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons, protocol III, signed in Geneva on 10 October 1980.
That is correct.
If that is the case, I have no problem with incorporating an amendment to that effect in my amendment. I want to condemn the use of white phosphorus and have taken a clear stance on the issue.
It was implied that I was somehow nobbled by Sir Henry in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am not for nobbling by anybody and those who are familiar with how I operate on committees will know that if a Minister or an official telephoned me and told me to say "A", I would sing "B" from the top of my hymn sheet for as long as I am able. I can pooh-pooh that suggestion. I did research and read the record of the Seanad debate. If I had not done so or had failed to read the resolution passed by the Seanad, my amendment would not have been up to the minute. The majority of the amendment is identical to the wording of the resolution passed by the Seanad. I am surprised that Deputy Allen is seeking to rewrite what has been effectively agreed by the Seanad.
The Seanad did not divide.
My amendment is substantially the same as the resolution passed by the Seanad. I accept, however, that section (I) is aspirational and perhaps requires amendment.
The matter could be resolved. Senator Norris and I do not have a difficulty with deleting from the motion the words "widespread and severe" given that all torture is of its nature severe. I suggest Deputy Mulcahy agree to remove the line "expresses the hope that in the near future all UN authorised forces in Iraq will be in a position to leave Iraq" because it leaves open the possibility of a future United Nations force for peacekeeping. If the Deputy gives way on that matter, Senator Norris and I will have no difficulty amending the text of the motion in the manner I have suggested.
Rather than negotiate in public, the meeting should suspend for five minutes.
We will suspend for five minutes to allow the authors of the respective texts to discuss them and try to find an accommodation.
Sitting suspended at 2.20 p.m. and resumed at 2.28 p.m.
As a compromise on the motion has been reached, I will ask Deputy Mulcahy to read out the compromise motion in full.
The amendment reads as follows:
To delete all words after "that" and substitute the following:
"(that) ... the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs
(a) notes with concern the reports of the use of white phosphorus by elements of the multinational force currently in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1637;
(b) condemns any use of chemical weapons in Iraq or elsewhere and the use of any conventional weapons in a manner which is contrary to international law;
(c) notes the intention of the government of Iraq to investigate conditions of detention following the recent deeply disturbing discovery of 170 detainees in an interior ministry building, and supports the call by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that in light of the apparently systematic nature of the problems with the system of detention, the Iraqi authorities should consider calling for an international inquiry;
(d) supports the call by those persons within the Iraqi Government for an international inquiry into:
(i)——
I suggest we use the word "elements" instead of the term "those persons".
The Deputy mentioned the word "persons" earlier.
That is fine, but I thought the word "elements" was tidier.
I have no objection.
The amendment reads:
(d) supports the call by those elements within the Iraqi Government for an international inquiry into:
(i) the use of white phosphorous in the attack on Fallujah;
(ii) the allegations of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of those held in detention in Iraq;
(e) condemns the indiscriminate use of violence against civilians and government officials in Iraq which has caused such terrible suffering in recent months and has been aimed at creating further divisions within the communities in Iraq;
(f) welcomes the outcome of the referendum on 15 October which approved the new constitution for Iraq and looks forward to democratic elections on 15 December for a sovereign Iraqi Assembly and Government;
(g) notes the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1637 on 8 November 2005 which, responding to a request from the Government of Iraq, reaffirmed the authorisation for the multinational force and decided to extend its mandate until 31 December 2006;
(h) expresses the hope sufficient progress will be made in the political transition of Iraq to enable a democratically elected sovereign government to assume full responsibility for security in its country at the earliest date.
That is my proposed amendment which I strongly recommend to all of my colleagues for adoption.
Is the second amendment to the motion agreed?
I have no problem with it. The amended motion includes the term "those elements", but the word "elements" would be better. It is only a grammatical point. Otherwise, I accept it.
Is this amendment in the name of three members?
It is an agreed motion.
It is an agreed motion in the name of the committee.
Very good.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.