Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Aug 1990

Vol. 126 No. 7

Middle East Situation: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

My colleague, Deputy Gerard Collins, Minister for Foreign Affairs, outlined in Dáil Éireann this morning Ireland's position on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. I am glad to avail myself of the opportunity to reiterate to this House that position.

With the ending of the cold war, which had bedevilled international relations for over 40 years, we had all hoped for the possibility of a more reasonable world order. Such an order is not possible if actions such as those of Iraq in invading and annexing Kuwait are not rejected utterly. The invasion and subsequent annexation of Kuwait by Iraq have served to remind us of the paramount need for respect for international law and the central place it must have in any acceptable world order. The invasion and annexation of Kuwait have shocked the world community. They represent the most flagrant violation of the UN Charter since the end of the Second World War. Iraq's action amounts to snuffing out a small State; it aims at no less than the disappearance of a member state of the United Nations.

When, on 2 August, Iraq invaded Kuwait on the pretext that a popular uprising had taken place and that the provisional Government had requested Iraq's assistance in the maintenance of law and order, Iraq set itself on a collision course with the rest of the world. It is estimated that over 100,000 Iraqi troops were involved in the invasion. They met little substantial resistance. The Emir of Kuwait and a number of the Kuwaiti Cabinet fled to Saudi Arabia. On 8 August Iraq purported to annex Kuwait. It is noteworthy that no evidence of a popular uprising has been presented and that, up to the time that complete annexation was announced, no Kuwaiti of any kind could be found to lend himself or herself to Iraq's charade of setting up an "independent" Government.

Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which feared further aggression, requested assistance in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which upholds the inherent right of states to individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. Some countries have provided this assistance, most notably the United States and the United Kingdom, together with Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan and most recently, France. Some of these have also agreed to send vessels to the region, as have a number of other countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, West Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the USSR. The tasks of all of these are not absolutely clear: some vessels are in the region for general surveillance purposes, while others intend to help enforce the UN embargo. Some other countries — including members of the WEU which have not yet acted, and Japan — are considering taking action.

In accordance with the provisions of the Charter, member states of the United Nations are providing support for the deployment of these forces. In our case, the refuelling facilities given at Shannon are within the bounds of established policy in the event of an international crisis. Such facilities are in keeping with our commitment to uphold the UN Charter and to ensure that it is respected in all its aspects. The UN Security Council, in its Resolution 661 response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, specifically cites Article 51 of the Charter, which provides for the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence of all member states. The troops transported through Shannon were provided in response to a request for assistance from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Our action in this matter is consistent with our support for action under the Charter. I might add that another neutral state, Austria, has provided overflight facilities for these flights.

The UN Security Council has taken action which is both decisive and unprecedented in the history of the Organisation. It is important that this UN approach should be effective. This calls for full support for the Decisions of the Security Council which, of course, are mandatory on all states. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, there is provision, if necessary, for further action amounting to a blockade. Ireland would support such further action if decided by the Security Council. International solidarity is absolutely essential to deal with this threat to the international order. Short of military force, only an effective international embargo offers a prospect of a solution. It is very important that the determination to avoid the use of force and to seek a peaceful solution be maintained.

Iraq will have to withdraw from Kuwait and the legitimate Government of Kuwait will have to be restored. These are the basic requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions which are as follows:

Security Council Resolution 660 of 2 August calls for the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Iraq's forces from Kuwait, the immediate start of negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait, and support for Arab League efforts in this direction.

Resolution 661 of 6 August, imposing sanctions on Iraq, is an unprecedented example of the potential of the UN to act. It was subscribed to by all the permanent members of the Security Council — USA, UK, USSR, France and China. The sanctions which have been imposed cover trade in all commodities and products with Iraq, excluding those supplies intended strictly for medical purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs.

Resolution 662 of 9 August, adopted in response to Iraq's declaration of a "comprehensive and eternal" merger of the two countries, declares that the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq is null and void.

Resolution 664 of 18 August demands that Iraq permit and facilitate the departure from Iraq and Kuwait of all third-country nationals and, in the interval, do nothing to jeopardise the safety of such nationals.

Resolution 665 of 25 August calls upon those Member States with maritime forces in the Gulf region to "use such measures commensurate to the specific circumstances as may be necessary" to enforce the embargo on trade with Iraq. This resolution provides the UN cover which the multi-national force was seeking for its enforcement of the trade embargo.

Ireland, as a member state of the European Community, has sought from the outset to co-ordinate our policy in relation to events in the Gulf as closely as possible with our Twelve partners. In European Political Co-operation this happens automatically. Given the position of our citizens and those of our EC partners in Iraq and Kuwait, the need for the closest possible co-operation in this field has become ever greater. Since the invasion, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has attended two extraordinary ministerial meetings with our Community partners and participated in a ministerial troika visit to the region, in which they had valuable discussions in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

In a statement on 2 August, the Twelve strongly condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, supported UN Security Council Resolution 660 and called for immediate withdrawal of Iraq's forces.

On 4 August the Twelve reiterated their condemnation and went on to agree, inter alia, an oil embargo on Iraq and Kuwait; the freezing of Iraqi and Kuwaiti assets; and the suspension of military sales to Iraq. The Twelve also indicated firm support for any UN Security Council resolution introducing sanctions against Iraq should it not withdraw from Kuwait. These decisions were implemented by Community action on 7 and 8 August and by national actions by the Twelve.

On 10 August, the Twelve recalled again their condemnation of Iraq's invasion and rejected its annexation of Kuwait.

At a meeting in Paris on 21 August, Ministers recalled their condemnation of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. Further, they focused on the position of nationals of the Twelve in Iraq and Kuwait; called for their immediate release; and warned Iraq that any injury to such nationals would provoke a very strong response from the Community.

Ireland has participated in making and implementing these decisions and our position is fully reflected in the stance adopted by the Twelve. We support the Community's willingness to assist those countries which are confronted by special economic problems arising from the carrying out of the UN measures. Already, we have joined with the Commission and our partners in providing assistance for evacuating from Jordan a large number of Egyptian refugees who were stranded there after fleeing from Iraq.

The invasion of Kuwait has caused a crisis in the Arab world. The Arab League adopted a resolution condemning the invasion and annexation on 10 August. Strenuous efforts are being made to resolve the crisis within an Arab context. The Twelve have declared themselves ready to support Arab efforts to restore international legality in the framework of the resolutions of the Security Council. One of the purposes of the troika mission was to signal clearly that support.

A number of initiatives are under way to find a peaceful settlement, notably the meeting of the United Nations Secretary General with Iraq's Foreign Minister in Amman tomorrow. Mr. Perez de Cuellar will be basing his approach on the need for strict implementation of all the Security Council Resolutions, but particularly of the resolutions calling for withdrawal of Iraq's forces from Kuwait and calling for the release of all foreign nationals.

King Hussein of Jordan and Chairman Arafat of the PLO are trying to promote an "Arab settlement". The Twelve are prepared to work with the Arab countries to achieve a settlement on the basis of international legality as set out in the UN Charter and in the resolutions of the Security Council. Any settlement must, of course, take into account the fact that the issue, crucially important as it is for the future world order, is one of concern to the world community in general and not just to the Arab countries. Accordingly, any effort at finding a settlement has to have the prospect of finding a just and lasting one in the framework of the resolutions of the Security Council.

The Government recognise the sense of frustration and helplessness which is felt by many people who have family in Kuwait and Iraq. We are doing everything in our power to deal with the difficulties caused to Irish citizens by Iraq's actions. The safety and welfare of our 350 or so citizens in Kuwait and Iraq have been, and will remain, the Government's first priority. All the Irish citizens in both countries are safe. No Irish nationals have been detained or moved to other locations, as has unfortunately happened to some nationals of the United Kingdom, the United States, France and the Federal Republic of Germany.

We insist that the rights of Irish and other citizens be respected. These rights include the right to leave Iraq and Kuwait for destinations of their choice. It is not, however, within our power to bring our citizens home without the acquiescence of the Iraqi authorities. We will continue to bring all pressure to bear to achieve this end.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, have directly involved ourselves in co-ordination of the national response to the plight of our citizens in the two countries. Efforts to secure their release have been conducted at several levels: bilaterally — our ambassador to Iraq has made numerous representations to the authorities in Baghdad, both nationally and as a member of the Twelve to seek the release of our citizens; the UN — the Secretary General will meet Iraq's Foreign Minister tomorrow, when the issue of foreign nationals will be one of the main items on the agenda; the Community — there is very close co-ordination and mutual co-operation of all Twelve; and the International Committee of the Red Cross — the Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed the matter with the President of the committee on 21 August.

We are very grateful for the very valuable assistance we are receiving from our Community partners in looking after the welfare of our citizens trapped in Kuwait. Despite the declared intention by Iraq to close all embassies in Kuwait on 24 August, their embassies are staying in Kuwait as long as possible in order to look after the welfare of their — and our — citizens. They are determined to do this — at some personal cost — despite Iraq's harassment, such as interference with water, electricity and gas, prevention of exit from, or access to, the embassies and a purported withdrawal of their diplomatic immunity.

It is a regrettable fact that the Iraqi authorities are playing on our concerns for the welfare of our citizens in order to erode the solid stance of the whole international community aimed at reversing the illegal annexation of Kuwait. The right of foreigners to leave the country they are in, for destinations of their choosing, is firmly anchored in international law. We call on the Iraqi authorities to fulfil their international obligations in this respect. These obligations apply to all foreigners in Iraq and Kuwait; we refuse to accept that one illegality, the invasion and annexation of Kuwait, should be compounded by another, affecting the rights and welfare of our citizens in Iraq and Kuwait.

I would like to recall in this connection the statement of 21 August in which the Twelve warned the Iraqi Government that any attempt to harm or jeopardise the safety of any EC citizen will be considered as a most grave offence directed against the Community and all its member states and will provoke a united response from the entire Community. Further, the Twelve warned Iraqi citizens that they will be held personally responsible, in accordance with international law, for their involvement in illegal actions concerning the security and life of foreign citizens. The responsibilities of Iraq in regard to our citizens are grave.

Only international solidarity, as expressed in the UN Resolutions, can bring about a peaceful end to Iraq's violation of international law. Such a resolution would also safeguard the welfare of our citizens now trapped in Kuwait and Iraq. In Kuwait, we are totally dependent on the assistance of our Twelve partners to look after the welfare of our citizens. There is no evidence that, by separating ourselves completely from the Twelve position, we would obtain more favourable treatment for our citizens. If all countries were to follow an individual path, the result would be international anarchy in which no act of illegality could be reversed and no concerted response to the violations of our citizens' rights could be sustained.

In order to cope with the extra demands being placed on them, the staffing of the two Irish embassies in the region has been increased. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has also asked officials in the Department to work extra hours, both in overtime and through the cancellation of summer leave. I can say from my own experience that the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs, both at home and in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, are unstinting in their commitment to looking after the welfare of Irish citizens.

The Government are fully aware of the distress and frustration which the present situation causes to relatives of Irish nationals trapped in Iraq or Kuwait. These relatives can be assured that the Government will not cease their efforts to secure the rights of their family members to leave these two countries.

In order to ensure that relatives are as fully informed as possible, the Government formalised the provision of information with the establishment of the special information service on the Middle East. This service collates all available information from our diplomatic missions, from our EC partners and from other sources. It has provided regularly updated information to relatives of those in the Gulf region for 17 hours daily, from 7.00 a.m. to midnight. At its peak, the service provided valuable information and a sympathetic hearing to almost 200 callers per day. Demand has declined substantially in recent days, most noticeably in the early morning and late evening. Therefore, the service will in future operate for 12 hours a day, from 9.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The infrastructure for the service will remain in place so that, if there should be any increase in demand for any reason, an extended service can be resumed immediately.

In addition to telephone contact, we identified quickly the need to be available for meetings with groups of relatives. The Department have readily agreed to provide a venue for the weekly meeting of the Gulf Relatives' Support Group. Departmental officials have met with the relatives' support group on four occasions and provided comprehensive briefing. I am pleased to see that this type of information exchange has been welcomed. The most recent meeting of the Gulf Relatives' Support Group, held in the Department on 27 August, attracted an attendance of over 130 people. Representatives of PARC and the Department of Health were also present to answer relatives' questions.

In order to reach as many people as possible, the special information service also circulates names of members of the relatives' support group who are willing to talk to other relatives unable to attend the group's meetings. A small committee of the group have now been established and the Department will continue to keep in close touch with the committee between the weekly meetings.

The committee of the relatives' support group asked to see the Taoiseach and he met with them this morning. This meeting was another in a number of steps the Government have taken to keep the public informed and to allay the fears of relatives.

As was discussed in the Dáil yesterday, and I understand it was discused here this morning the crisis has impacted severely on our exports. The sanctions imposed by the United Nations cover trade in all commodities and products with Iraq, excluding supplies intended strictly for medical purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs.

Irish exports to Kuwait amounted to £11.2 million in 1989. Irish exports to Iraq amounted to £47.4 million in 1989 of which £42.4 million was beef. Adding export refunds, the trade was worth £90 million to £100 million annually. Ireland's dependency on this trade is relatively the highest in the Community. Between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of Iraq's beef imports come from Ireland and beef represents 10 per cent of total Irish exports world-wide. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in a television interview on 23 August, there is a need to develop alternative markets for beef and cattle and we have been concerned to remove any obstacles in the way of exporters.

We are pleased that, following a lot of pressure on our part, the Twelve have agreed that the ban on high-level visits to Iran should be modified to permit visits by Ministers dealing with "technical" portfolios. In relation to the question of the ban on the import of Irish bone-in beef because of fears of BSE, the decision allows the Minister for Agriculture to visit Iran. His visit will, I hope, clear the way for the full acceptance of our beef on the Iranian market. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also used the opportunity of his recent visit to Egypt as a member of the EC Troika to impress on the Egyptian Minister for Agriculture the quality and disease-free status of Irish beef.

To return to the main subject of the debate — Iraq's invasion of Kuwait — I would like to underline once again the great importance of the international community making clear the absolute unacceptability of this kind of behaviour.

Without respect for international norms none of us is safe. To bring about a return to legality is, of course, not just a matter of speeches and statements, but also a question of the international community re-asserting the rule of law and being determined that violations of international order, such as we have witnessed in recent weeks, will be redressed.

We now have an important opportunity to take a collective stance in order to demonstrate this unacceptibility and thus set out the parameters for the kind of order which will make for a more secure and stable world, now that the Cold War can be assigned to history. A good beginning has been made. The reaction of the Security Council — the highest organ of the United Nations — has been unprecedented in its speed and in its scope. The capacity of the UN to act in such situations is the central element in a future world order which can provide the assurances we all need. Hence the need for international solidarity in support of the condemnation of Iraq's action.

The Twelve, too, have been able to act effectively in support of one another, particularly in seeing to the welfare of our citizens in Iraq and Kuwait, and in support of the action taken by the Security Council.

The Government are determined to continue to act in solidarity with our Community partners in total commitment to the measures adopted by the UN. Now that the last vestiges of the Cold War between East and West have been removed it is our sincere hope that this first test of the new world system can be resolved in a peaceful manner in accordance with the UN Charter.

Mr. McDonald

First, I would like to thank the Government for providing time for a debate on the situation in the Middle East. I must compliment the Minister on his very full statement on the situation outlining the Government's point of view. In this debate we should focus, in particular, on the illegal detention of Irish people and of the people of many other nationalities in Iraq and Kuwait. I hope that last night's announcement by the Iraqi Government that non-Iraqi women and children will be allowed the freedom to decide whether to stay in Iraq or to leave is given effect. I hope that that anouncement represents the beginning of a change of mind on the part of the Iraqi Government and a move away from a line of action which flouts all principles of international law and practice and which has been, rightly and universally, condemned.

We must make it clear that we maintain our demand that non-Iraqi men, too, must be given the freedom to leave that country, if they so wish. It is for that reason that I, too, call on the Government to summon the Iraqi Ambassador and inform him in the clearest possible terms of this country's abhorrence of his Government's illegal action in detaining Irish citizens, men, women and children, and other non-Iraqis; against their will and in depriving them of the liberty to leave Iraq, if that is what they want to do. That is also the reason why I believe the House today should explicitly support the United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, in his insistence on highlighting the United Nations Security Council Resolution in his meeting with Iraq's Foreign Minister later this week.

In taking these steps we will be stating very clearly the opinion and belief of this House, as I see it, and the wish of our people in general. We will be adhering rigidly to the terms of the resolutions agreed at the United Nations and we will be making it clear that on this issue there is no such thing as a balanced position; there is only a right and wrong and we should encourage governments of other concerned countries to take the same steps and in doing that, in asking the UN states to insist on this point, we will be making it clear that this kind of interference with the liberty of citizens cannot be tolerated.

We will also be contributing to what is in my view the best way of ensuring a speedy and complete change of heart on this issue by the Iraqi authorities. I have come to the conclusion that the best hope for the restoration of liberty to those unfortunate people is to ensure that the Iraqi Government are faced with the full weight of international opinion on this issue. I believe that every concerned country must make its position crystal clear; they must make it clear that they are working together in a united fashion to achieve that objective.

I feel that I should compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the Trojan work he has undertaken with his other EC colleagues, with a certain amount of success over the last number of weeks. I wish their efforts continued success. The only reservation I have on the whole policy as put into force by both the Security Council and our EC partners is on the question of the embargos in 1990. Is it in keeping with the wishes of the people of this country that food supplies, apart from the economic effect of our trade being disturbed, be included as part of a war, whether the war is cold or hot?

We all have a very genuine abhorrence at the thought of the use of either atomic or chemical weapons in any conflict if that were to arise, but we are a Christian country with certain traditions and with a folk memory going back to the Famine days in 1840, which is almost 150 years ago. I think the ordinary Irish person in the street would feel quite unhappy about participating in a cold war in an embargo which had the effect of starvation for people, whether they be Iraqis or our own people who have chosen to go to work in foreign countries. I was slightly disappointed that our Minister for Foreign Affairs did not advert to the fact of the right of these people to food when that particular policy was being formulated.

I hope that this course of action will quickly bring about the result that we want. Until it does I believe there are other measures we should take. Like every other Member of this House I have spoken with individuals who have sons or daughters, brothers or sisters and other relatives in either Iraq or Kuwait. I can fully understand their fears and their emotions. They need every support, both moral and physical, and we should ensure that we, and the Government on our behalf, will support them in every way possible. The actions that I would like to see getting political support would meet the wishes of every Irish citizen.

One of the great needs, I think, is information and I compliment the Department of Foreign Affairs on their efforts in that regard. Many of the families are not within easy reach of the Department of Foreign Affairs, or indeed of the PARC authorities, and many of them are already feeling the burden of travelling for news of their relatives or of making long distance telephone calls for news of what is happening. There is a very simple and practical measure that I think the Minister should consider as an extension to the excellent work they are already doing in Iveagh House, and that is simply to set up a communications centre in which relatives themselves would be able to play a part. We should provide free phone facilities in order to put the parents at home at ease. I think it would be very beneficial for a distraught parent, whether a mother or a father, to be able to phone one of their children either in Baghdad or Kuwait and just talk to them for two or three minutes. It would ease them considerably. Getting information second hand leaves them in a cloud. I do not know what that would cost, but I know it would not be very expensive. From newspaper reports one learns that some difficulty is being experienced by those people working in Baghdad in being able to have access to telephones and to have either the money or the change to phone in this direction. That is a point I would ask the Minister to examine seriously to see if we could help.

It is almost 51 years since another régime tried to annexe smaller countries. Irrespective of whether Kuwait is an oil rich or mineral rich country, I think the United Nations have certainly done the right thing. We recall that we had Irishmen and women serving in Namibia for a considerable time. That is not an oil rich country; it has no great wealth of mineral rights, but they had a problem and the United Nations responded to that. In this particular situation the United Nations have almost unanimous approval from both East and West for the actions they have taken. That, I think, must surely give those of us who have always believed in democracy and democratic rights a great hope that at last all countries have come to a realisation and respect for democracy and it is going to be extremely difficult for new, up coming dictators to advance. Whether the countries being annexed are big or small, whether we trade with them or not, if it was appropriate for the League of Nations in the twenties and thirties to take a very determined stand for the rights of small nations, it is even more important now, with the modern technology at the disposal of people with evil designs, that we should stand together and be prepared to make sacrifices.

At the same time, however, it is difficult to say that to the parents of a young Irish person who may be caught in Iraq. Our Government must leave no stone unturned to ensure that every last one of our nationals should be reunited with their families whenever they wish. I would hope that the efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the wonderful work the officials are doing continue and that they will be allocated whatever additional manpower resources are necessary so that they can effectively and efficiently fulfil the role they are given.

I would like to support the Minister of State in his view that the Iraqi authorities are playing on our concerns for the welfare of our citizens in order to erode the solid stance of the whole international community aimed at reversing the illegal annexation of Kuwait and the right of foreigners to leave that country for destinations of their own choosing. As the Minister said, that is a condition which is firmly anchored in international law and I think this House should call on the Iraqi Government and authorities to fulfil their international obligations in this respect. It is quite clear that their attempt to flout almost the unanimous wishes of the rest of the world cannot be allowed to continue.

With those few observations on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I wish to compliment the Minister on the progress that has been made so far, but at the same time to call on the Government to leave no stone unturned to ensure that all of our citizens are given the opportunity of leaving for home whenever they so desire.

Mr. Lanigan

It is not the first time that we have discussed problems in the Middle East in this House and it is not the first time that I have risen to speak to the House in relation to, in particular, the problems of Palestinians. I have spoken in general terms of problems associated with the Middle East for many years. I am glad to see Minister of State Gallagher here with me, because he visited Iraq at one stage during the war and saw at first hand the depredation that war caused to that country, both physically and mentally, and in every other way.

I totally agree with the condemnation that has been expressed against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It is an invasion that should not have taken place. There was absolutely no way that it could be condoned and I stand behind every statement of condemnation that can be made against the regime of President Saddam Hussein for this invasion. Before I go into the subject in more depth I would like to pay particular tribute to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the officials of that Department, the Minister, Ministers of State, in particular our two excellent ambassadors, Ambassador Connolly and Ambassador MacUnfraidh and their staffs in Riyadh and Baghdad, because they are doing a fantastic job under difficult circumstances. The embassies in both Riyadh and Baghdad have been inundated with queries and these queries have been dealt with in a human manner, and everything possible that could be done by our dimlomatic representatives in attempting to help the Irish citizens, whether in Kuwait, Iraq or Saudi Arabia, has been done.

I can understand the concern that parents or relatives of those in the Gulf area must have. I understand totally the frustration that quite a number of these are feeling because of the lack of communication with their families. Their is concern being expressed that the Government are not doing enough to alleviate the problems that are being experienced in this communication area. I must say that quite a number of these problems are not problems that the Government or PARC or any other company can adequately deal with because I have tried on numerous occasions to ring Iraq, but unfortunately the message is always that the international telephone lines are not in operation.

You try to go through the operator but you are told that the lines are not available. In the last ten days I have only been able to get though once and when I did the line was cut off abruptly. That applies in particular to Baghdad. The lines to the embassy in Riyadh have been open and manned for up to 15 hours a day. At times they were not manned, because there were only two or three people in the embassy at the time, and some people found it extremely hard to get through. Nevertheless, I feel that as much as is possible has been done by our staffs out there.

The concern expressed about lack of communication is one I have heard of before during the war between Iran and Iraq. On visits to Baghdad we had meetings with representatives of the staff of the Ibn-Al-Bitar Hospital who expressed fears as to how they could be got out of Iraq if the war happened to reach the Baghdad area. I am sure at present the same fears are being expressed as were expressed then. I would go along with the suggestions and I know that the Minister, the Minister of State and the Taoiseach will take into account the problems associated with the families and their lack of communication. It is a traumatic experience to have somebody in a war zone and not be able to communicate with them.

The question as to the use of civilians as hostages has been raised again and again. Of course, it is totally wrong that citizens should not be allowed freedom of movement from whichever country they happen to be working in. We must look at the holding of hostages in perspective. It is not too long ago since we in this House were condemning the USSR because they would not allow their Jewish people to leave, and it is only in recent years that those who wished to leave the USSR have been allowed to do so. So people should not forget what happened in the past.

I agree with suggestions made that food should not be used as a political weapon and I am afraid that there are cries throughout the world at present that food should be a political weapon and that the best way to deal with this problem apart from war, would be to starve the people in Iraq. Food is a political weapon. We have seen in the Third World how food is a political weapon. I sincerely hope that the Irish Government, in their total commitment to the United Nations embargo, do not go along with the argument that food should be part of the embargo. It is necessary that food should be allowed in because a nation cannot be starved out; it has been tried before and it does not work. There is also a moral side to this and it should not be even attempted.

There have been moves afoot to suggest that this is an Arab-only conflict and it is up to the Arabs themselves to resolve their own problems. That is too simplistic a view, but nevertheless the Arab leaders should be allowed to get very much involved in negotiations to attempt to resolve the crisis. The first issue that has to be addressed is the withdrawal by Iraq from Kuwait. That has to be the first step in any movement whether it be by Arab negotiators or by negotiators under the auspices of the United Nations. I do not believe in the King statement or the Thatcher statement that no negotiation is possible in this area. Negotiations have always to be possible and should be allowed take place.

Throughout the debate too little emphasis has been placed on what is happening in Iraq and Kuwait and the Gulf area, on the fact that within these communities, right throughout the Gulf, there is potential for conflict at present at all times. I am surprised that the conflict did not come from internal sources in Kuwait, possibly in the United Arab Emirates or in Saudia Arabia and various other places, because of the fact that so few, and in particular you can take it when I say so few I mean that families control the territories that were allotted to them by the British in 1922. Iraq got rid of the ruler placed in position in 1922; but, apart from that, it can be said that the lines drawn by the British in 1922 are still the lines that are operative in that area. When I say that I thought the conflict would arise from within, it is because of the holding of total control by certain small numbers of families to the exclusion of the rights of people working in these countries.

The real losers in Kuwait are the Sabba family in terms of their loss of their oil resources. The 300 Palestinians who were actually running that country are possibly bigger losers in the sense that they now, not having citizenship, are again thrown on the world's scrap heap. Quite a number of them are now in Jordan. Jordan is becoming a destabilised country because of the huge emigration from the Gulf area. If the destabilisation of Jordan continues, the West and the East will be sorry. Of course, the only people who are sitting on the sidelines at present, suggesting that it was an unstable state anyway, are the Israelis. Within Israel itself there is a debate taking place as to what should be done, whether they should attack now or wait to be attacked. Within the state of Israel there are hawks who would like to exacerbate the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Norris

Could you specify that?

Mr. Lanigan

Perhaps you can get this week's Christian Science Monitor and read what is said by a source close to the Prime Minister which, I would suggest, is the Prime Minister.

The United Nations, for the first time in many years, has got its act together in uniting itself to deal with a particular problem. I sincerely hope that the United Nations will follow up on its present strength. It has the virtually unanimous support of all the world states in its condemnation of the Iraqi military invasion of Kuwait and it also has virtually unanimous support for the economic sanctions that were imposed. The United Nations Security Council were in fact the people who suggested that the sanctions be extended. We are not members of the United Nations Security Council, so we did not have a vote in that body as to whether we should go along with resolution 665. Nevertheless, as a member of the United Nations, we go along fully with the United Nations Security Council resolution.

The destabilising effect of what Saddam Hussein has done in his invasion of Kuwait will have long term effects throughout the Middle East. The international community is going to have to be careful in how it continues to react. The international community is going to have to look carefully at the makeup of the states in the Gulf. The leaders of the states in the Gulf area are going to have to look at their own internal security situation, their own economic situation and their treatment of people who work in those areas. If they do not, we will see a continuity of problems in the Middle East, more dangerous than the present confrontation, if there could be a more dangerous confrontation than exists at present.

We are being preached at by the media. It is unfortunate that we seem to accept that CNN, through Sky News, is the best news agency that is coming out of the conflict area. CNN is a CIA controlled body. It is a fact that much of the media reportage being carried here is media reportage which has its origin in the British television stations. We do not have experienced Middle East reporters involved in this conflict. Our reportage is not, from an Irish point of view, good enough. There are people from RTE and possibly from one of the other stations out there, but their knowledge of the area is not good and their reporting is, I think, worse.

Mr. Norris

You voted to cap RTE.

Mr. Lanigan

The situation is that we are not getting a balanced reportage. But I also think that the efforts by Saddam Hussein to bolster up his image in the Middle East by producing his "Guest Nights" is not doing any great good to his situation either. He has a total lack of knowledge as to the western mentality in terms of its acceptance of fed reporting.

I would like to speak for a few minutes on the question of the reason for the huge international intervention in the area. The huge international intervention is because it is an oil rich area. If there were no oil in Kuwait, if there were no oil in Saudia Arabia, if there were no oil in the United Arab Emirates, there would not be one single sinner in the international community who would bother.

Mr. Norris

You are dead right.

Mr. Lanigan

They are going in to protect a cheap energy source.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lanigan

Between the years 1973 and 1978 oil prices quadrupled and between 1978 and now there has not been any movement in oil prices. The price of a barrel of oil before August 1 was about $17. It was $30 a barrel in 1978. If it went to $30 a barrel at present, I would like to know what the equation is between the value of $30 in 1978 and the value of $30 now. I would suggest that the value of $30 in 1990 as against 1978 would be possibly a quarter. Therefore, oil prices in fact have gone down and there is a very cheap resource there. The cheap energy resource is what the international community are looking at, the protection for the west.

It is not the first time the west decided to protect its source of cheap energy. The "seven sisters" controlled that area for too many years; and, unfortunately, the "seven sisters" look as if they are going back in again. The seven major oil producing or oil selling companies are going to be the big winners in this if they get control again of that area. It looks as if Saddam Hussein has given them the opportunity to so do. In regard to oil, which is a non-replaceable commodity, if the world cannot look at alternative means of energy-sourcing, than the world is a very bad place. If one takes 1980 as a base and say that the usage of oil in 1980 was 100, that has gone down to 63 now so that the use of oil as a means of energy production has reduced. This is one of the reasons why many people are not worried about what is going on in the Gulf at present. There is an abundant supply of oil in the world. It is different from 1973 or 1978. There is 100 days supply of oil in strategic places at present whereas in 1973 there was no oil at all.

I was reading a book by David Fromkin called "Peace To End All Peace. Creating the Modern Middle East 1914 to 1922". It could be said that the attitude of the British at that stage through its Encylopaedia Britannica has not changed since. It states:

Physically the Arabs are one of the strongest and noblest races of the world. Thus physically they yield to few races, if any, of mankind. Mentally they surpass most and they are only kept back in the march of progress by the remarkable defect of organising power and incapacity for combined action. Lax and imperfect as are their forms of government it is with impatience that even those are borne.

This coming from the people who created the stateless in 1922 by arbitrarily drawing lines around certain areas in the Middle East.

Gertrude Bell who worked in the British Foreign Office under Lloyd George stated that:

You are flying in the face of four milleniums of history if you try to draw a line around Iraq and call it a political entity, as Syria always looked to the west and east and north and Babylonia to the south. They have never been an independent unit. You have got to take time to get them integrated. It must be done gradually. They have no conception of nationhood yet.

They have a conception of nationhood which includes Kuwait. I am not too sure whether an arbitrary line that is drawn by Saddam Hussein has any more relevance than the arbitrary lines drawn in 1922 by the British. The Arabs are a nation. The European imperial intervention in the Middle East has been a sad one. It is very sad that the lines drawn in 1922 are becoming lines of contention in 1990. We have to be careful that what is happening in the Middle East does not have a major impact outside that area. We are seeing the crocodile tears of the British, German, French,——

Mr. Norris

The Irish.

Mr. Lanigan

——the United Nations, in their attitude towards the threat of chemical warfare. It has to be understood that there is chemical warfare going on in the world at present. Anyone who visited the West Bank and Gaza will have seen United States made chemicals being used against children and that cannot be gainsaid.

The supply of technical information came from Europe. Whether it came from Austria or Germany does not make any difference. Their military capacity has come from the USSR, Britain and France. Britain is still prepared to sell arms to the Middle East but not to Iraq. It is building up the armies. This week it sold planes to Saudi Arabia. The British are still selling technology into the area which the Iraqis have got hold of. They have sea mines which have the capacity to escape the dragnets of the ships in the Gulf.

Crocodile tears are being shed by major Governments when they talk about chemical weapons and the buildup of weaponry in Iraq and other states in the Middle East. The major States have been selling those arms to them. There is no point in crying about the use these arms might be put to because when arms are sold, they are only sold for one reason, for use in a war.

This debate gives the Government an opportunity to reiterate their total support for United Nations sanctions but there are questions that have to be asked in relation to the embargo on food exports to that area and in particular to the Iraqi area. I have no doubt that food should be allowed in. I am not talking from an Irish commercial point of view. I do not want to see people starved into submission. These people had nothing to do with the decisions made at the highest level by Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people do not deserve to be starved because their leader has the same type of colonial aspirations as had the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Dutch in that area for many years.

We have to look at the Palestinians. They are the biggest losers in the long term as a result of what Saddam Hussein has done. I hope that this is recognised. There are other losers too — the Filipinos, the North Koreans and the Egyptians who are working in the Gulf area. Their situation is bad. There are people in Jordan who, having fled from Iraq and Kuwait, are penniless, and they will go back into penury in their home countries. From one point of view, I am not saddened to see certain Filipinos get out of the Gulf area. They ran the households but they were treated as slaves. That is an area we must look at when this conflict is over. The misuse of people from Third World countries by richer nations must be questioned and whether it be in Paris, Baghdad or Kuwait the world has a responsibility to look at the problems associated with slave labour.

We wish Perez de Cuellar well in his efforts today with Aziz, the Foreign Minister of Iraq to get a basis for negotiations. I do not believe in the thinking that might is right. I believe that all conflicts are resolved by discussion and negotiation. There is only one abiding principle that must be addressed, that is the Iraqis have to leave Kuwait. After that we can talk about the problems associated with the political situation in the area. The primary concern must be that no negotiations take place until the Iraqis leave Kuwait. I am glad that this very relevant debate is taking place. I am also glad that the Seanad was recalled and that we were able to debate the matter in a calmer manner than it has been debated in the media over the past number of weeks.

Professor Murphy

I must observe that it is highly regrettable that our debate should take place in the total absence of the media. I know that our contributions will be recorded, but we had to protest about this kind of thing before. It is very unusual that there is a total absence of the media and there should be a better arrangement in the Press office.

I would like to endorse much of what Senator Lanigan said about the good work being done by the Department of Foreign Affairs, by various Ministers and public servants, ambassadors and so on. In particular, let us sound a note of unallayed and unconfined joy on the release of Brian Keenan. It is an event which should not be clouded by any controversy or reservations. Everybody involved is entitled to our congratulations, and perhaps we should put on record a special commendation to our colleague, Senator Eoin Ryan, who was one of the parliamentarians involved in the negotiations.

On the general matter of the Gulf, it goes without saying that I, like everybody else, regard Saddam Hussein as a "baddie". I am not sure he is a "maddie", which is the impression given nightly on the western media. It should be remembered that he is a Frankenstein created by the West to a large extent. That is only one of the many respects in which the analogy with Hitler breaks down. Whatever about the victorious allied powers being responsible for the rise of Hitler, they certainly did not supply him, as far as I know, with the appalling sinews of war as the West has done with Saddam Hussein. He is, to some extent, a Frankenstein created by the West and most major western nations have their responsibilities.

Reference was made to a slanted western point of view in the media coverage. Senator Lanigan referred to a partisan view. What are deplorable, night after night, are the strident and bellicose tones on channels like the BBC. Even in the suave tradition of the BBC, there is the strident note, continual disparaging remarks about the Iraqis in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. That reflects the abusive stance of people like President Bush and Margaret Thatcher who not only use the terminology of demons when they apply it to Saddam Hussein but have virtually given up hope, if they ever had it, that the problem will have a peaceful outcome.

The difference in emphasis between the British and the Americans on the one hand, say, and the Soviets on the other, is interesting in this regard. Mr. Gorbachev says diplomacy has not been exhausted and the others are virtually saying there is no point really in hoping that this will bring any real solution. It seems to me, unfortunately, that the Anglo-American alliance is geared for war. We sometimes hear this expressed in very extreme terms indeed. Last night there was a clip of a United States Republican Senator who in effect said, "let us go in and take them out; I will take them out myself."

Apart from the deterioration of the situation that this bellicose rhetoric represents, there is the failure to realise that Saddam Hussein is, in many ways, something thrown up by the Arab world. If this Saddam Hussein disappeared, there might well be another Saddam Hussein. He is, in fact, a symbol and a symbol of the turmoil in the Arab world.

The fact that Arabs are divided among themselves about the events that have taken place since 2 August should not make us blind to the fact that the Arab world as a whole is hostile to the western intervention, except those brokers of power who have a vested interest in being shored up by the American intervention. The military build up by the West has provoked extreme Arab hostility. What is now facing the world is a confrontation and a polarisation that has been obscured for a long time by the Cold War. In many ways the polarisation, the Cold War, was within the western family. Marxist Leninism was a heresy within western philosophy. What we are now seeing is the West versus Islam, something much more ancient and fundamental — a confrontation between Islam and Christianity, a conflict between West and East, between rich and poor and between mutually uncomprehending cultures. Much of the abusive language used by people like President Bush and Margaret Thatcher is due to total inability to understand a radically different culture and a radically different civilisation.

Even those Arabs and Middle Eastern powers who gave guarded support to the West in this area have their doubts about the motivations of the Americans, for example. The last time I was in the United States petrol hovered around the $1 a gallon mark and there was universal panic that it could possibly go over $1 a gallon. The Americans, as a people, are as undertaxed as we are overtaxed. There is no doubt but that the phrase "national interest" on the lips of President Bush means among other things, continued access to a source of cheap fuel and energy which will continue to shore up a luxury standard of living. The Arabs are cynically aware of this less than perfect motivation of the West and, of course, the occupation of territory, which is the crime held against Saddam Hussein since his invasion of Kuwait, was not something that troubled the West unduly when used by its own supporters in the Middle East, particularly by Israel.

There are, as Senator Lanigan rightly pointed out, considerable hypocrisies in the whole story. Saddam Hussein has, unwittingly or otherwise, also exposed a division of social and economic classes within the Arab world, in other words, he parades himself as a champion of the Arab underdog, even as an exponent of socialism. No matter how fraudulent we may think these claims are, his action has definitely thrown up and exposed the division between the haves and the have nots in the Arab world. Anyone who thinks that Islam is a homogeneous socioeconomic unit has only to think of the richest man in the world. King Fahd on the one hand and the most miserable of the dispossessed, let me say among the Palestinians on the other. Indeed ranged alongside King Fahd are those other potentates who have a vested interest in the status quo. At the risk of being facetious may I say that they are no great shakes.

Saddam Hussein has disturbed a nest of hornets there. When the immediate crisis is over let us hope peacefully over, all that is something to be considered by the West, and by the European Community in particular. They have to decide how to deal in the long term with that enormously complicated and, in many ways, alien and alienated Arab world. There is much truth in the stereotype that is drawn of Hussein but the reaction of President Bush is that Hussein's suggestions are universally wacky — the latest being that there should be a cosy tripartite discussion on television between himself, Thatcher and Bush. But, when Saddam Hussein suggested that this whole conflict was a matter for a universal round table consideration of the whole Middle East situation, when he said, for example, that disengagement from Kuwait should be linked to Israeli disengagement from the occupied territories and American withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, it may have sounded outrageous but there was a core of truth at the heart of the whole thing. Whatever solutions are arrived at in the next few months can only be a temporary solution until there is a total global solution of the Middle East. Through his mad and aggressive actions he has thrown that chestnut into the fire, he has put that on the table, on the long term agenda.

It may take a long time before the morale of the Iraqis is broken by United Nations economic sanctions. We have no escape from that dilemma. Even when general supplies and food run short it will not bring Iraq to its knees overnight. With respect to food in particular, and with respect to rationing in general, let us remember that a national population under wartime siege may have its morale enhanced from food rationing and from shortages. That was the case in the United Kingdom during the Second World War. It was the case in neutral Ireland during what we call the Emergency. Hardship is not necessarily a quick determinant of a political situation. The danger there, of course, is that being so, there will be the strong temptation from these massed forces along the Saudi Arabian-Iraqi border to try out the quick solution, the dangerous and bloody solution. We have enough trigger-happy people among the politicians and military who want to take that solution.

Our own position in all this has been much discussed because of the hostages. Today there was an article in The Irish Times by Mary Holland, which should be read perhaps in conjunction with one a week ago by Fintan O'Toole, suggesting that our foreign policy is in a shambles and that, essentially, we are following different, and sometimes contrary, lines of action. If our foreign policy is in a shambles one reason for it is the lack of parliamentary control of foreign policy——

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Professor Murphy

——and specifically — we will continue saying this until something is done about it — the absence of a joint committee on foreign affairs. Sooner or later foreign policy must be accountable to public and parliamentary control. There is a sense in which our foreign policy is inconsistent and contradictory. There is no doubt about that. This is so because we have inherited two different foreign policies from the history of the last 30 or 40 years. The conflict between those two strands of policy is the conflict between the ghosts of Seán Lemass and Frank Aiken, between an Ireland orientated towards Europe wishing to be accepted as a member of the European Community, wishing to behave itself well within that Community on the one hand, and on the other an Ireland following the shades of Frank Aiken which sees itself, rather or as well, as, I am not sure which — a member of a world community having a rapport and sense of indentity with the lesser nations because of our history, our neutrality during the war and our colonial experience.

Our foreign policy is in uneasy conflict between those two different strands and, of course, there is another element which compounds it further. There is also our need as a state with great problems of unemployment and emigration, to be nice to the United States. That is yet another component: to be nice to the United States and not to offend the United States and as well a genuine sense of kinship with the United States. All that again, of course, reinforces the need for a discussion on foreign policy not as an ad hoc response to a crisis but as a long term part of the personality of this State.

The big question is, can we follow these two lines at the same time. Can the gobadán freastal ar an dá thrá, can we run with the United Nations hare and follow the European Community hound? I believe we can. That is what the art of diplomacy is about. It is quite obvious from the present crisis that individual members of the European Community, the EPC and the aim of having a common foreign policy notwithstanding, have different world interests. They have different national interests.

Senator Lanigan's speech is a very good example of that. He referred to the British as virtually an evil genius in the genesis of this whole Middle Eastern problem. He referred to one of our Community partners as being one of the baddies in the present situation. What he is actually saying is that Britain had its own national interest in the Middle East which would be quite different from our national interest, and Britain still pursues that national interest. It seems to me that the reaction of the British, the French and the Italians over the last month to unfolding events has been, on the whole, very much an individual national response. What I am saying is that if the European Community is about diverse cultures, cannot it also, within reason, be about different nuances of approaches to international affairs?

As far as we can, we must pursue our own national interests within the constraints and conflicting inheritances of which I spoke. If the green passport helps, then we should play it for all it is worth. The green passport is a symbol of a remaining national identity in the international community. I still possess, and hope to for as long as possible, a green passport but that is an individual preference. What I am saying is that if we can play the green flag and the green card in the Middle East then let us play them provided it is not in flagrant contradiction with whatever common policy is resolved by our European partners. There are inevitable anomalies and inconsistencies here. They have not yet been resolved. Until they have been resolved and we have a clear policy we have to pay homage to Aiken and Lemass at the same time, as it were, or whenever it suits our purpose.

I take the Minister's point in which, very diplomatically, there is a reply to those distressed relatives — understandably very distressed relatives — who have their families locked up and trapped in this crisis and who are demanding that we should do something dramatic about it. That the Taoiseach should go to Baghdad, for example is a most extreme demand. The point made by the Minister is that that would make matters worse. For example, we cannot pursue the interest of our nationals in Baghdad at the expense of our nationals in Kuwait where we have no direct representation, where we are beholden there, and in other places, to the diplomatic delegations of our Community partners. We cannot afford to go it alone in that respect but, that being said and that dramatic alternative not being open to us there is definitely a case for pushing the same kind of pressures that got Brian Keenan released and playing the green card as far as possible in these matters. Meanwhile, what we certainly must do is support the United Nations policy as distinct from any more belligerent attitudes building up in the Gulf crisis.

I am not sure that there are two different attitudes yet, two different kinds of presence in the crisis, that there is the United Nations policy on sanctions and the more belligerent attitude of the United States and Britain and so on in terms of the military build-up. Perhaps as of now the bellicose context is being harmonised somewhat uneasily within the United Nations picture. If there are two scenarios, and if there are two lines to be pursued then we must give no comfort to the warmongers or to the sabre rattlers.

We must follow the United Nations line, we must put our trust in Perez de Cuellar and pray him every success in his immediate mission because, of course, the great hope that is coming out of this agonising crisis is that the United Nations will emerge for the first time since its foundation 45 years ago with a chance to breathe and to have a new status and respect. In many ways the most important issue now at stake in the Gulf crisis is not who will win or who will lose in terms of the protagonists but whether the United Nations will finally steer us all to a new post Cold War order.

Mr. Cullen

I join with speakers in this House, in the other House and probably throughout the world in condemning the actions of Iraq in its invasion of Kuwait some weeks ago. This has precipitated a world crisis on an enormous scale and of potentially enormous consequences for all of us, not just the Western world.

One of the things that has been said in this debate which surprises me is that the West would not have the slightest interest in Kuwait if it was not for its oil reserves. That is true. However, Saddam Hussein would have no interest in Kuwait either if it was not for its oil reserves and to fuel his megalomania in building what I believe is now the fourth or fifth largest military power in the world. We have got to put things somewhat in perspective. We do not have to berate ourselves too much in the West about the actions that have been taken on a united world front to deal with the present situation.

I agree with what Senator Murphy said. One of the most important things at the moment is the re-emergence of the United Nations. That body ceased to function in any real crisis for a long number of years because of the existence of the Cold War. It did not have within it the capacity to deal with world crises because of the veto situation which was simply invoked due to the differences in ideologies among many countries. Its inability to act rendered it in many ways a meaningless body. However, the present crisis has given great hope for the future in that if the efforts of Perez de Cuellar are to be successful over the coming days and weeks, and it is seen that it is primarily as a result of United Nations efforts that the Middle East conflict can be resolved, then a truly new era in international relations will have been born. Because of the end of the Cold War, which we all welcome so warmly, it is vital that some body with world-wide support, that is, the UN, is strong enough in a crisis to take the initiative and prevent the global disaster which indeed we may still be faced with.

The West, of course, has a lot to answer for in its avaricious and hungry desire to sell weapons wherever it can to build up armaments throughout the world. It has always puzzled me why these weapons continue to be produced when already throughout the world there are enough to blow us all to kingdom come I do not know how many times over. Yet so many economies, particularly the American economy, have such a dependence on their defence industry. The US are not alone in that. France, the UK, Germany and other countries tend to obtain much of their income from the production of weapons. However, when the day arrives, as it has now, that those very weapons that were created in the West may be turned against the West, the situation changes.

I have held the belief for many years that the really big conflict that will occur in the world will be an economic one and probably fuelled by the need for oil as a source of energy. Whether oil is at present a cheap source of energy or a dear one I do not know, but it is certainly legitimate for the world to want to stabilise the situation. The world economies, the employment of peoples throughout the world, depends on stability, and the cost of energy is one of the key components in most industrialised economies. If that source of energy is allowed to be controlled primarily by one man, one country or within one area, then the rest of the world and its economies can be held to ransom, can be hugely destabilised and the crises we saw in the seventies will seem like passing anomalies in comparison to what the potential would be if Saddam Hussein is to achieve which I believe is his real ambition, control of not just Kuwait but, indeed, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and anywhere else that might just fall into his clutches. He has not built up this massive military might simply to protect his own country or to annex a country like Kuwait which is obviously incapable of defending itself, as is Saudi Arabia. Without the intervention of Western and Arab forces it would have disappeared very quickly.

The question of whether food should be used as a political weapon in relation to sanctions was also raised. The resolve of the Iraqi people will be unstinting against sanctions and it will be a long, difficult and slow process. Whatever means can bring that process to a conclusion should be used. If food is to be part of that process, then so be it. If we are to have meaningless sanctions or if they are to work in some ways and not in others, we will all be watching the Middle East for the rest of this decade and probably beyond.

The taking of hostages, be they Western or from whatever country, by the Iraqi regime is contemptible. The efforts of Saddam Hussein, parading himself on television using children to show the world that his guests, as he calls them, are in good health, was appalling. It was an absolute disgrace and made one want to vomit. He is not the first ruler in this century to have utilised the same type of PR and we saw the results of that evil regime some 40 years ago.

I do not accept that view that the problem in the Middle East is just an Arab problem. I do not believe it can be solved by the Arab people themselves because it affects the rest of the world. I cannot change that. If we lived in an ideal world perhaps we could talk about different ideologies, the way we would like to see things done and how everybody should live happily together but the world is not like that. Given the parameters within which we have to operate, it is legitimate for the world, through the UN, to take action where necessary.

The invasion of Kuwait has raised, legitimately, the question of the Isreali occupation of the West Bank and other territories, the PLO and all the other questions that have been building under the surface over the last number of years. If we resolve the Kuwaiti problem tomorrow morning, next week or in six months time and the world is happy with the outcome, we should not sit back and forget about the other problems in the Middle East. Those questions must be part of a longer term agenda for the Middle East. The UN, which got "teeth", as I said earlier, and are operating in a very forceful manner, should bring the same powers and will to bear on other important issues that are dominant in the Middle East at present.

One of the points this conflict has raised, and which is a hobby-horse of mine, is our foreign policy. In my view we have a schizophrenic foreign policy. It has grown out of a mythological neutrality to which I do not adhere. I do not believe, and never have as I have stated on many occasions, that we are a neutral country. We are neutral in the sense that we do not have a massive army and are unlikely to ever have one. We certainly will not be invading anybody because we do not have the means or more importantly the desire to do so. The reality is that we are part of the western democratised world and our economy and the movement of our people depend on the western world.

We can no longer be part of Europe as it is being constituted and then opt out when certain questions arise. It was a great disappointment for me, and I am sure for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when he had to opt out of the EPC meetings in Europe in recent weeks. Our present Minister for Foreign Affairs has done an enormous job on behalf of this country. He has brought tremendous credibility and scope to the Irish point of view. His achievements in gaining the release of Brian Keenan have been extraordinary. He has made important contacts throughout the world and, obviously, is a highly respected figure in international diplomacy. I do not see why, simply because we are a neutral country our viewpoint from a neutral standpoint cannot be put across at whatever levels we seem to be involved in. I think we are somehow admitting to the world that we are second class citizens within Europe. I have a great fear of this emerging if we opt out of some of the existing structures on the basis that we are neutral, a point of view I do not hold.

If we truly want to be a neutral country in a military sense, there is a legitimate role for us to play; we can express our opinions and be party to all the developing structures that exist, particularly within the EC at present. I dislike intensely — this is a personal point of view — our present stand, our present conditioning and the propagating of the different type of myths and strands of neutrality that we tend to adhere to. I am fairly convinced that we are going to have to face up to this sooner rather than later.

We have played the green card, to use Senator Murphy's expression, fairly successfully over the last number of years. I have no quibble with that. The more successful we are at it the better. I have no doubt that the crunch is coming for us. We cannot be taking so much from various sources on the one hand and opting out on the other hand. I have no problem with the fact that we are members of the United Nations, and that American transport planes going to the Middle East are refuelling at Shannon but I am sure there are many other people who do have a problem with it and I can see why. Where does the line of neutrality that we are supposed to have begin and end? We need to have a serious debate on this topic. We need once and for all to clear our minds and our hearts and establish a proper perspective on where Ireland's future is to be in that area.

I wholeheartedly agree with the formation of a joint committee on foreign affairs. This was debated long before I entered the Dáil or indeed, this House but has come more to the top of the agenda is the last number of years for obvious reasons. It is because we live in such an international environment and have such interdependent international economies, particularly in Europe, that it is inevitable that our foreign policy, our attitudes on many different topics are coming more to the fore. It is my opinion that we as legislators in both Houses have a legitimate right as representatives of our people to actively participate in the formation of the foreign policy of this country. The present position is ridiculous. In the past all Governments ran away from this idea. I will be very disappointed if this Government, of which my party is a party, run away from the formation of a joint committee on foreign policy. This is a very fundamental issue.

I believe that, privately, Members of all parties and Independents see the need for having such a committee. I do not mean that the legitimate right of the Government of the day would be negated or restricted because of the existence of a proper joint committee on foreign affairs but I believe it would be aided tremendously by the existence of such a committee. It is a great shame that we do not have such a committee. I will continue to press within my own party and on this Government for the establishment of a joint committee on foreign affairs. It is long overdue and there is an enormous amount of work they could tackle immediately. There will be no shortage of things for them to do.

I want to congratulate the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister, on their efforts to secure the release of Brian Keenan. I want also to congratulate the embassies and diplomats who assisted in this matter. The staff and diplomats working in those Departments should put the contacts they have built up at the disposal of other countries whose nationals are held as hostages in the Middle East. That would be the correct course of action and would be welcomed by other countries.

We cannot get directly and actively involved on behalf of other countries but the contacts that have been built up by the Minister and his staff should be used to the full to resolve that problem. Of course, that problem has now been. superseded by the hostages being held in Iraq and Kuwait. However, we should not forget those other people are still being held.

The world must take an extremely firm line about taking hostages. It is a weapon that has become fashionable over the last number of years and is a problem which is very difficult to resolve. I agree that the Middle East crisis cannot be resolved by listening to every point of view, and that putting the hostages to the fore and then making decisions based on the fact that the hostages are in situ in the Middle East would be the wrong approach. Obviously, whatever decisions are made at United Nations level will take that into consideration. It is a very difficult problem and the brakes must be put on now.

In regard to the problem in Iraq, I hope the Leader of that country will stand back and listen to his own diplomatic corps who must be consistently bringing the same message to him: that the world utterly and totally condemns his actions and that under no circumstances — no matter how long it takes or what his obvious ambitions are — will he get away with what he has done in the Middle East.

The Arab people are divided on this matter but it is not as simple as has been said; they are not simply divided on social class in terms of the haves and have-nots. One of my greatest fears with the Middle East crisis is this fundamental holy war type attitude, in other words, the attempt to "stir-up" the Arab population by the use of this holy war. If that was to be the spark that lit the fuse in the Middle East, the consequences would be horrendous. We all know — it is no secret — that the Iraqis have the capacity to use chemical weapons. We do not know the extent of the devastation that could be caused by them and it will be virtually impossible for armies, not to mention innocent civilians, to withstand the effects of a chemical war. The consequences of the response from the West, in nuclear terms, that I see on some of our less favoured American television news broadcasts — on which I have heard tactical nuclear weapons spoken of — would be horrendous for the whole world. I do not know what a tactical nuclear weapon is in comparison to a nuclear weapon; either it is or it is not a nuclear weapon. There are many flashpoints, danger signals and unexpected events that could spark this off. I can imagine the feeling in America today where a plane crashed in Germany and 12 Americans were killed — I am not sure if that number is correct but they are the last figures I received. Those accidents — or whatever they are — tend to fuel national pride and the hawks begin to get into full flow and before we know where we are war has started.

The resolve of the UN should be broken. That is the key to preventing a war in the Middle East. The great Super Powers, America and Russia, are working together, no matter how tenuously and that must be encouraged. If we can proceed down that road it can only be for the benefit of all. I hope there will be no more hostage taking and that the recent announcements about women and children being free to leave Iraq and Kuwait are true. I hope they get out as quickly as possible and that they will be immediately followed by the release of all hostages held in the Middle East.

If Iraq were to take that course, the world would take a further step back from the brink and it would be a very encouraging sign for negotiations to get underway. After all, negotiations must begin at some stage and at some level. Nobody is going to march in or out of Kuwait without some form of discussion taking place beforehand. The sooner that process takes place the better. This country is ideally suited to be active in many ways in trying to bring about peace in the Middle East, notwithstanding what I believe to be a number of problems with what we express as our neutrality.

Mrs. Jackman

I am glad Senator Murphy looked for an extension this afternoon so that we could address such an important issue. I wonder — and I am not being cynical, but very honest — if we did not have the meat crisis would we be here today? Before the weekend, we were specifically to speak on the Companies Bill and there was no reference to the Gulf crisis. It came as a sort of second option — now we are here we might as well debate it. I and Senators in the Fine Gael group were annoyed at the speed with which the Companies Bill was put through today. It shows that expediency really is more important than full debate.

Seanad Éireann must condemn that Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Many speakers have put the complexity of the Middle East crisis before us today. The Iran/Iraq crisis has been going on for the last eight years. The general public are not very well informed on the Middle East crisis. I have heard a lot today from people who have an interest in it from an historical viewpoint, from today's viewpoint and from a military viewpoint, but I will be emphasising the human dimension, and not just of our own people out there which, of course, is foremost in our hearts. They are working for a developing country and giving of their expertise. The cynics will say they are well paid but the bottom line is that our people are there on an altruistic mission and they have continually supported infrastructural, educational and medical developments in developing countries. I saw on television last night the thousands of poor refugees who are crossing into Jordan with nothing, a country that can ill afford to look after them. One refugee camp had 17,000 people without money or food. There is the danger that the huge human dimension which is always forgotten in war will again be overlooked in this conflict.

Secondly I would like the Seanad to condemn the Iraqi Government's refusal against the principles of international law and practice to allow our citizens and other non-nationals to leave either Iraq or Kuwait. Again we should affirm strongly our full support for the United Nations Security Council Resolutions Nos. 660, 661, 662, 664 and 665 that were mentioned in the Minister's speech and also the common EC position. From what I can gather reading through reports over the last few weeks, the French seem to have done their thing, as did the Germans. I did not see any great cohesive EC strong feeling of a full European context in support. It was rather piecemeal; it was rather individualistic. Irish people wondered, to whom do we belong. I will later look at the concept of our neutrality.

Again, it is imperative that the Government summon the Iraqi Ambassador to tell him how much we abhor the illegal action of his Government. Perhaps all this has been done, but it is no harm to repeat it. We should demand the immediate reversal of Iraqi actions. I will be spending some time talking about the need for a communications centre with Freephone facilities for Irish families with relatives in Iraq and Kuwait. Up to last Sunday, there were people in my own area who had actually no contact one way or another with PARC. They were people who did not realise that there was an action committee in Dublin, families with children working with PARC as nurses and they had had no contact with anybody. They felt they were the forgotten number. When PARC suggested that they would set up a communications liaison network they singled out Galway and Cork, and seem not to know about the geographical location of the mid-west. There is the notion that they have tabs on everybody who is directly involved but when it comes right down to specific families the areas of the mid west, North Tipperary, South Tipperary — which is not quite the mid-west but which is mid-west geographically — and Limerick are forgotten.

Many of those people who are farmers have forgotten totally the importance of the meat industry. Quite honestly, they are saying: "forget it; our children are out there". They, obviously, with world headlines about oil and meat think — excluding the humanity of Mr. Goodman who is a member of the human race — that we are talking about commodities. No wonder those people are cynical when they think of themselves and their needs. All they see is the media coming and going in relation to commodities. All they hear is what the United States are doing, whether we are involved with them as has been said already, or whether we feel we should be supportive of the United States because of the close bond between us and butter our bread on occasions. We hear about how oil is so important to us, but it is not important to them at the moment. They are very upset over the whole consumerist approach to the problem. That is their perception. They met us today and they met with the Department of Foreign Affairs officials who are working day and night to resolve this with the Minister.

I am not saying that people are not working on their behalf. We are very much aware of what is being done, but when we are talking about people's own flesh and blood they want black and white. They do not want diplomatic statements; they do not understand them. They are emotionally on a "high" now. All they know is that over the last few days the black market calls from their relatives were made under stress conditions. They are suffering stress. They have no money. Food is disappearing. They do not have access to fruit markets and shops are closing before their eyes. When I said "food" I meant the food they had been used to. There is still hospital food, but they have not access to fruit or markets to which they had been going. We find, obviously, that there is difficulty getting money out to them. As we can understand, when money is routed through the country in the same way as post there is danger of sabotage. There is the danger of the taxi man delivering the mail being attacked for money. If those people were told that something can or cannot be done their fears would be allayed. Fear stems always from the unknown, from secrecy and from being kept out on a limb.

I am going off the point and what I am saying might seem a simple solution to something that was overlooked. There is need for these people to come together and to have a communications centre. They must have free phone facilities and to converse. We must keep the morale of the families up. Another week to them is a life time. It is essential to have the lines of communication open. It is something that we, in Ireland, are good at and I would like to applaud the efforts being made in that regard.

Irish diplomacy at the end of the day secured the release of Brian Keenan and that has to be applauded. His release is seen throughout the world as being due to the good relations that exist between us, as a non colonial country, with the Middle East. We should emphasise that over and over again. It is what we are good at and have international respect. Therefore, it is something that we should pursue. I do not think we should have any conscience one way or the other about what is neutrality or what is not neutrality or whether we should be going along the EC line. We can do all those things simultaneously. Emphasis has been placed on Kurt Waldheim's efforts. He is not in the EC but Austria would be very interested in being a member, as we well know. However, he was able to pursue his policy of neutrality. Our Irish people out there, if they see this happening from a neutral country, are going to raise the whole issue of neutrality.

The next point I would like to make is that the Government should ensure that when Perez de Cuellar, the United Nations General Secretary, meets the Iraqi Foreign Minister he should stress the United Nations demand that Irish citizens, and other non-nationals in Iraq and Kuwait, be restored to full freedom. We are fighting for all. We are not just fighting for Irish citizens, we are fighting for all non-nationals.

We must hear in mind that wars start accidentally. We do not understand the culture of the Iraqi people. We must have the necessary contingency plans to prepare for the prospect of hostilities. It is something that we do not like to think about but we must. Since I came to Seanad Éireann I could not count the number of times we have called on the Government to set up an Oireachtas foreign affairs committee. We looked for it before the end of the Cold War. We looked for it before the Berlin Wall was dismantled. We looked for it in relation to Northern Ireland, but the issues just flow through. Every single week there is a demand for an Oireachtas foreign affairs committee. I cannot understand the tardiness of the Government — it not even tardiness — but a complete blank wall in relation to having this committee as a permanent forum.

So many issues were raised in the debate today. The global context of our contribution was mentioned. We are no longer an island that wafts away and can survive. We are involved. To quote John Donne, "no man is an Island", but Ireland most certainly is now part and parcel of a global condition. We talk about it, we talk about our Europeanism and our concern for all peoples of the world. We wanted a foreign affairs committee set up in relation to the need for Third World aid when we had the Ethiopian crisis.

The debates in Seanad Éireann since last November have centred on issues outside this country more often than on those here. It is imperative that a foreign affairs committee should be set up immediately. One of the first issues that should be discussed would be what exactly we mean by our neutrality. We should face up to the issue. Do we want it or do we not? What do we understand by it? Is it a sort of vague mythological thing that we hide behind? Many people do not know what it is. It is waved to and fro when appropriate. It has to be discussed, whether it is going to upset us or not. It has to be discussed openly by members of all parties. We are not going to be able to get away with saying we are neutral or we are not neutral. We do not know whether we are neutral or not. Do we want it or do we not want it? This has to be discussed immediately. It should be one of the first issues to be discussed when we get an Oireachtas foreign affairs committee.

Moving again to the human dimension, we can underestimate people's tolerance. People react in different ways to stress and crisis. I will take the PARC Hospital and the case of a young nurse of 23 years of age as an example. How has that nurse been helped through her education to cope with the problem she is now faced with? We do not know the extent of the stress. We met the various families today and saw that some of them reacted calmly but some of them reacted in a very volatile way. It is important to realise the solidarity of those support groups. They should be spoken to and should have access to every person from whom they feel they can get help. We owe it to our citizens. They feel they are not getting it. They felt they were voices in the wilderness. I am very much aware of the efforts being made by people in the Department of Foreign Affairs who certainly are not taking lunch or coffee breaks, they are staying until all hours of the night. We know this, but the relatives do not know it. These things should be told. They should be told that all efforts are being made to help them. All these people want is a reassurance. They are ordinary people who are floundering. They were not ready to be catapulted into this crisis. Again, I emphasise the human dimension.

In the Minister's speech the whole of page nine is given to our exports in Kuwait. I will not go through it because I know there are other people who wish to get in. Our exports are in mega figures. Our dependence on our trade is relatively the highest in the Community. I will not dismiss this as being of no importance. Of course, it is very important. It could be argued forever whether we should have avoided the volatile area of the Middle East. We did not. We are in it and we have investment there. There is a point where the Minister for Foreign Affairs said there is a need to develop alternative markets for beef and cattle. He has been concerned to remove any obstacles in the way of exporters. When one looks at the harsh reality of that, and having visited Japan not so very long ago knowing that they have not reached the affluence whereby they can actually look to meat for their diet rather than the traditional fish, I genuinely believe, despite the fact that the Japanese have markets with Australia and the United States that there is scope there for ourselves, if we take ourselves and look towards Japan for markets.

We will have to do this at the end of the day anyway. It is not enough to have a statement saying "alternative markets for beef and cattle". It must be spelt out whether it is viable to look for markets outside of the volatile Middle East. The next step is to plan what we will do with our raw materials. The farmers of this country are understandably upset. They are wondering what sort of a winter they are going to have in relation to beef prices. We always seem to react to crisis. We never seem to have a plan in anticipation. From now on there is nothing that we can be sure of. There is a cycle of life. We might have a United Germany or good relations with the USSR. There may no longer be hostilities between the United States and the USSR, but the nature of the human psyche is such that there will always be crisis. It is the pursuit of power; it is greed; it is a fact of life going back for thousands of years. The conflict just moves from one place to another. In these days it may be the West versus East. If we go back in history we see that the Crusades, which lasted for a long time, were specifically concerned with this eternal conflict that was going on between West and East. We must think in terms of that fact.

I suppose there are many cards that we can play, but that seems to be a superficial statement. Our immediate responsibility at this time is to our own people. We are a small country. We should be able to have every single one of the families who are directly involved on line with us. We should have them on word processors. They should be given weekly, or daily, bulletins — because now the situation has become a crisis — in order to allay their fears. I would hope we would have confirmation of Saddam Hussein's statement last night that women and children will be released. He was close to his interpreter. He looked the camera in the eye, whether that accounts for sincerity or honesty I do not know. I would put a question mark on it. I hope we have confirmation from the Department of Foreign Affairs that the women and children will be released. That does not mean that the fight does not go on for men and the hostages of other countries. I ask specifically that the points I have made will be taken on board by the Minister. I also ask that when we resume we will have a foreign affairs committee which will set to seriously debating issues which are going to be with us for a long time.

Mr. Hanafin

What I have to say is by way of a few comments rather than a speech. First, I am glad of the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerald Collins, his junior Minister and the Department on the manner in which they handled the Brian Keenan affair. We also had one of our Senators who involved himself to some extent also. As a Member of this House and one who is very proud to be a Member, I would like to take this opportunity to say I am always very glad to see a Member of this House involving himself in things of great importance. In the same way as I am complimenting Senator Ryan I did some time ago compliment Senator Paschal Mooney on his involvement with the Guildford Four. As one of the longest serving Senators here I take great pride in the fact that our Senators involve themselves in these matters. The manner in which the Minister, Deputy Collins, and his Department carried out this task was superb. All of us are very grateful to him and to his Department.

I would like to condemn the invasion of Kuwait. Saudi Arabia and the other Emirates would have been annexed were it not for the immediate action taken by Western forces and forces of other Arab States. I did not think that I would see again in my lifetime anything remotely like the Hitler I saw when I was a young boy. The President of Iraq claims that he merely entered Kuwait because there was a popular uprising and because he was called on by the Provisional Government to help in the restoration of law and order. That is such a lie. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. There was no evidence then and there is no evidence now and there never will be evidence. It was just a lie to the whole world. He wanted to take over Kuwait and would have taken over other states too were it not for the fact there was such immediate action taken. His propaganda on television is also the same type of propaganda that was used by Hitler in the days of the late thirties. It is absolutely sickening to see him on television with the hostage children who were frightened. The hostages must be very frightened out there dealing with such a person. His attempt to make it a Holy War is so pathetic. From my point of view it shows that he, like Hitler, is trying to involve the Israelis. All these mad, evil men try to lay the blame on the Jews: "Let us bash the Jews", that has always been their policy. That is the first thing they have always done. It is so like Hitler that it is almost frightening.

I had a long association with Kuwait. In fact senior people from Kuwait were my guests here in this House on two different occasions. They have visited me here and I have visited Kuwait. Kuwait has always been very well disposed towards Ireland. Many colleges and research projects have benefited as a result of the generosity of Kuwait. They have been very helpful to us always and very concerned about this country. They have always indicated to me and to others their willingness to help in any way they could. I remember on one occasion bringing one Kuwaiti visitor in to the then Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, and he impressed on us that whatever they could do for the Irish, they would do, as they felt we had so much in common. They are a very lovable people and I got on very well with them. One of the people that I introduced here is in the diplomatic service now. I have been making inquiries about the other and nobody seems to know about his whereabouts. What I think is happening now and what I feel is happening is something that would not be new to us in Ireland. In this country we had the Elizabethan plantations and the Cromwellian plantations. I believe now the plantation of Kuwait has commenced and there are Iraqi mercenaries and adventurers being moved into Kuwait to take over houses of Kuwaiti people and businesses.

The Palestinians are being brought now from Jordan into Kuwait. For a people who talk so much about the rights of their own homeland, it is difficult to understand how they now — and I believe this to be true — are moving in and displacing Kuwaitis out of their homes and are taking over the homeland of Kuwait. This is not because the President of Iraq has any great love for anybody or those around him or that he is concerned about the Palestinians or their homeland. It is merely an attempt to build up a force within Kuwait so that when he is finished playing for time, which is the obvious thing he is doing now, perhaps in six months' time his plantation will be complete and he will then call on and agree to a plebiscite being taken in Kuwait and that hopefully, from his point of view, all these people he has planted in Kuwait will be the ones who will vote and agree to being joined with Iraq. That, I believe, is his mission at the present time. He will get away with it unless action is taken. We know from history what evil men can do. Some of us know from our own history what evil man are capable of in the pursuit of power. I believe that Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq is such a man.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mooney)

Before I call the next speaker, I would like to put on the record of the House my acknowledgment of the gracious remarks of Senator Hanafin. It is not the first time he has alluded to my small, insignificant contribution in the area of the Guildford Four.

Dr. Upton

This is an appalling situation for the 400 Irish people stranded in the Gulf. They are hostages. There is no point in calling it anything else. It is a time of tremendous anguish and pain for their families. Everybody in this country would extend to them their sympathy on the ordeal they are experiencing.

The background to the problem can, to some extent, be explained by a failure of foreign policy. It is primarily a failure of foreign policy on the part of the major powers, an inability to understand the way things were going to work out or could work out down the road arising from their anxiety at that stage to curb the march of Iraq. It is also an element of failure on our own part to understand the risks. If it is not the failure to understand the risks, then I would suggest that there has been a failure to explain the risks.

I wonder if the people who now find themselves trapped in Kuwait and Iraq fully understand the risks to which they were exposing themselves when they went to those countries. I would question if it had been made clear to them the type of environment into which they were going. It is easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight, but certainly when you look back at this, by any standards that situation was a dodgy one. I am not saying that they would not have gone. I am not saying even that they should not have gone, but I wonder if the full extent of the risks they were taking were made clear to them before they left. In medical circles, they talk of informed consent. I wonder if these people who did consent and, indeed, some of them were anxious to go, went with the full information of what the prospects were. Again, I emphasise that it is easy to be wise after the event.

It might also have been a factor that some of the nurses left because of the cutbacks at home and the problems in the health services. There is no use going over the failures and harping on them. We must now try to come up with some solution to the problem. There is no doubt that it is a difficult situation. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. I certainly do not want to start pretending that there is an easy way out. The restraints and restrictions on this country in relation to this problem are undoubtedly enormous. Some of the things we should avoid are fairly straightforward. We should avoid support for militarism on the part of the United States. It is important that we strive, and keep pushing all the time, for a non-military solution to this problem. The consequences of military intervention are almost unthinkable. It is important also that the relatives of the people trapped in Kuwait and Iraq be given every facility and support. I am pleased to hear that there are some developments in this area. Facilities should be made available for these people to be able to travel to and from Dublin. They should have accommodation available for them here. They should have transportation available to them to get them to Dublin for the briefing sessions. These families should be provided, as far as possible, with an objective evaluation of the information available and an objective evaluation of the situation that now exists, whether pleasant or unpleasant. In the long run everybody is better by levelling and telling the truth than by trying to gloss the thing over and saying it will be all "hunky-dory". I am anxious that these people would be given an objective, straight from the shoulder account of the situation rather than having the people hoping the whole thing will go away. It may not go away. It is better that the people know of the situation and what the likely outcome is and what the risks are.

There may be a role here for a parliamentary delegation from this country seeking to involve itself on behalf of the trapped people. I would hope that that would be an all-party delegation. I am confident that our own party would be pleased to participate in it. I am confident that my colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, would be anxious and prepared for and, undoubtedly would have a great contribution to make to such a delegation. I have no doubt either that some of the people on the other side of the House, some of whom have undoubtedly distinguished themselves in this Foreign Affairs area, would like to be on such a delegation. Senator Hanafin has already mentioned some of the people who have had successes, including the acting Cathaoirleach and various other Senators. The same would be true of people on this side of the House and, indeed, some of the people on the benches behind me. I hope that the Minister would consider my suggestion and see if anything could be done to develop something out of it.

Éamon Ó Cuív

I dtosach báire agus an t-ábhar tromchúiseach seo á phlé, is dóigh go mba cheart dom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Taoiseach, leis an Rialtas agus leis na taidhleoirí a bhí ag plé le cás Brian Keenan. Is iontach an gaisce a rinne siad é a fháil saor ag an am seo, agus is dóigh go ndéanfaidh an beart áirithe seo méid éigin, más beag féin é, leis an deighilt taobh istigh den tír seo a leigheas. Tá fáilte faoi leith roimhe gur sheas Rialtas Éireannach le saoránaigh iomlán na tíre sa chás seo.

In the case of Brian Keenan it is important for us to realise that the recognition by the Government of Iran of Ireland as an honest broker was a great help in his release.

On the Gulf crisis it has to be recognised that most wars are fought because of greed. Most wars have an economic backdrop to them. It is obvious in the Gulf that this is so. The greed for the control of oil, which is a commodity in world demand, is more than likely at the back of the original invasion of Kuwait and the danger of invasion in neighbouring countries. However, in recognising that we should also recognise that the response of some nations might be more determined by the protection of their interests than by some basic moral code. We all condemn the invasion of any country by any other country and we must continue at all times to speak against all acts of aggression particularly when they are perpetrated by the strong against the weak. We must do this irrespective of who perpetrates the aggression. Too often in recent years countries have considered it in their interest to annexe small neighbours. We, with our history, being a small country, recognise how we suffered due to that particular syndrome. However, it is also important to recognise that in this instance, for the first time in a long while, the United Nations Organisation has taken a stand and has passed resolutions which bring some semblance of world order to the resolution of these types of dispute.

There is a saying in Irish, "Ni hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb". It is very important to recognise that the UN structures as they stand are defective and that to ensure that this situation does not repeat itself they need reform. The idea of five countries having a veto over any resolution is not satisfactory, five countries on a purely historical basis. There is a need for some type of world judicial procedure to resolve disputes between nations and, having made their findings, to have some agreed procedure to enforce such resolutions.

Another point we would have to look at is the whole question of democracy — the rights of people to pick their own governments free from outside interference and the total unsatisfactory nature of any type of autocracy or dictatorship. We rejoiced quite rightly last autumn at the coming of democracy to Eastern Europe and we must once again dedicate ourselves through international organisations to democracy and also to the principle of self determination for all peoples. Only on those foundations can true world peace be formed.

There is a danger, as we are carrying on this debate, of war breaking out on a scale that is hard to imagine. The idea of limited war is no longer tenable. The consequences of a war in the Gulf are too ghastly to consider, a war that could entail both chemical weapons and nuclear weapons on a scale that has never been used in the history of mankind. We must in our small way, as a small democracy with no large vested interest throughout the world, continue to speak out against war as a method of resolving disputes, because when the war is over people have to talk. We must continue to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes, that war in this modern world cannot be justified because the damage and harm it does far outweighs any benefits.

We must avoid also what is a common syndrome — the idea of creating hate for people of various countries. Twenty years ago it was the Soviet bloc and all its population. Iran then were the baddies and now the people of Iraq. People throughout the world are much of a muchness. There are good and there are bad; but the vast majority of the ordinary people of any country want to go their way, earn their living, rear their children and so on. We should never lose that human dimension. What has happened in Eastern Europe, where democracy has come with minimum violence, should become an example of how the world order can be changed without resorting to military violence.

I would have great personal difficulty with the concept of a food or medical blockade. The idea of starving 16 million people into submission abhors me. Those 16 million people cannot answer or be answerable for the wrong deeds of a small ruling clique in one country. We should never forget that within that 16 million people there are people who have suffered, in a way that we have not suffered, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. We should never forget that such a blockade would also include Kuwait, the Kurds and all the ordinary people of Iraq. Therefore, we should through the international fora insist that humanitarian demands would say that people should not be starved for the doings of a small ruling clique.

I would like to say a few words about the people being held hostage in Iraq. It is a despicable use of people to hold them hostage. It would be a fair comment to say that basically the whole Iraqi population are hostages in this situation, but obviously we have particular concern for those of our people who went to the Middle East to provide services and to earn their living and who have now been denied that basic fundamental right to leave when they wish. We support fully all the efforts our Government have been making through their diplomatic channels to ensure the safety, well being and ultimate release of these people. We can only pray at this stage that it will not be long until they are given the fundamental right to leave these countries and return home to their people safe and well.

Tá mé buíoch go bhfuair mé an deis seo labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Thabharfadh stair ár gcine tuiscint dúinn ar fhadhbanna tíortha beaga atá faoi ionsaí. Ba cheart dúinn seasamh leis an stair sin agus déanamh cinnte de nach gcaillfimid an seasamh sin don cheart as féin a bhí mar thraidisiún sa tír seo ó fuaireamar ár saoirse, go seasfaimid leis an gceart sin agus nach gcuirfimid aon saint ná aon spéiseanna faoi leith eile roimh an rud is ceart don náisiún seo a dhéanamh.

Acting Chairman

Before I call the next speaker I would just like to inform the House that there are a number of speakers offering. The statements are due to conclude at 5.30 p.m. and I would ask Senators who are remaining to keep that in mind. I would now like to call Senator Norris.

Mr. Norris

Could we have an extension of the debate?

Acting Chairman

My understanding is that the House has already agreed that the statements will conclude at 5.30 p.m.

Mr. Norris

In that case I will certainly try to be brief. I have a lot to say and wish to get it on the record. The first thing I would like to ask is why we are discussing this whole question of Iraq and Kuwait. I wonder when it was that the western powers woke up to the question of Saddam Hussein.

I have in front of me — unfortunately, I will not have the time to read it entirely into the record — briefs from Amnesty International. "There have been over 10,000 ‘disappearances'. Torture is widespread and common. Trials are grossly unfair and come nowhere near basic international standards. In September 1988, Amnesty called on the UN Security Council to act immediately to stop the massacre of Kurdish civilians by Iraqi forces. By this date it had already been estimated that over 55,000 Kurds had fled across the Turkish border——"

Acting Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt you, Senator, but perhaps you might for the benefit of the Editor of Debates give the quotations and references if possible please.

Mr. Norris

I will indeed. It is Amnesty International Nuacht and I can make it available to them. In other words, there is a track record here. I would like to ask — I am sure the Minister is aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein was installed by the CIA — what guarantee do we have that whatever the CIA and the American Government replace him by is going to be any better? The Minister, I have no doubt, is probably as aware as I am that when Hussein was installed the CIA supplied him with the names and addresses of members of the Iraqi Communist Party, the Opposition which might now have led to a front against Hussein, and they were obliterated. I wonder how clean our hands are in this situation.

I would like to say, with regard to the poison attack on the Kurds, I was not astonished but I was sad to hear Senator Lanigan equate gas attacks which eliminated in three minutes flat 5,000 people, Kurds on Iraqi territory in the village of Halabta, with the use of tear gas by the Israelis. That tells us something about the level of balance in that issue with Senator Lanigan.

I would like to address another question, which is the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and so on and an attempted equivalence between this "occupation" and the attack on Kuwait. Kuwait was a non-aggressive state. It was attacked, it was seized, it was invaded. The reason the Israelis are in the Golan Heights and in the other Occupied Territories is that in 1967, as the Minister knows, they were the victims of an aggressive war waged by Syria and Egypt in which Jordan joined opportunistically. That is how they lost the territory. That is recognised in United States Resolution 242, which calls upon all participants to talk directly. Only one Arab country, Egypt, has done that, and the reward was that the territory was transferred back.

I would like to say one thing with regard to Hussein's statements and proclamations. He has put an offer to negotiate on the table. He has said everything should be out there to be looked at. I think that was probably the most intelligent thing he said. If the West had had their wits about them what they would have said is "Let us have everything on the table, because at the end of the day the entire situation in the Middle East has to be resolved, complex as it is." But I would have said "Fine. There is only one precondition. We will all come to the table, but in order to come to the table all the states have got to be recognised. Therefore, all the participants, all the Arab States have to recognise the existence of the state of Israel." Then you would have had a move towards peace. I am sorry that that possibility was not taken up by the world community. I think it was something that should have been done.

I do not share the reservations about neutrality that some Members of this House seem to. It is important that Irish neutrality be retained. It is very valuable. It has been squalidly treated a little bit in the last few weeks, because it was obvious that American transport planes were being refuelled at Shannon. That is, in my opinion, a breach — at least morally if not technically — of neutrality. I know the Minister is shaking his head, but I believe it is — and I said morally, not technically. Morally it is a breach of that neutrality. The Minister will remember the attitude, for example, of the Taoiseach's chum, Colonel Gadafi, when the bases in England were used by the Americans. He did not like it very much, he certainly regarded it as an aggressive act and as a result he sold a very considerable amount of arms to the IRA.

Mr. Calleary

No comparison, Senator.

Mr. Norris

Ask Saddam Hussein if he thinks there is a comparison. You will find that he and Mr. Gadafi would agree quite clearly on that. I think there is a point in a principled neutral stand for Ireland. It is extremely important. I would like that neutrality and balance to be part of our foreign policy. We have an ambassador to Iraq. We know the human rights record of Iraq. We know that they have systematically tortured children, that they have executed children, that in Kuwait already one of the first things they did was to execute a 30 year old, a 16 year old and a 20 year old. We know what their human rights record is, yet we have an ambassador there.

What about the Iranians? We know what their human rights record is. Again, I have further briefing documents from international human rights organisations with regard to Iran. What have we done in the last week or so? We have appointed an ambassador resident in Teheran. Which is the most significant player in the Middle East that is being systematically denied this? Israel. Is that not interesting? Does that suggest balance, or a lack of balance? Is that not a cogent argument for a foreign affairs committee where all these matters would be ventilated? One of the most important things that happened here today was to hear the Progressive Democrats Senator saying that he and his party thought there should be a foreign affairs committee. I would like to put it on the record that that now shows there is a majority of Members of the Oireachtas in favour of a foreign affairs committee. I hope there will be a response. Item 105 on the Order Paper, in the name of Senator Ross and myself, makes this point very specifically and looks for such a committee.

I just want to make one or two more points, because I do not want to take all the time, I wish we could have expanded the time. I have a lot to say and I very much regret that I have to rush it. I am sure the Minister would not wish this either; but those, I suppose, are the rules of the House and we have got to abide by them.

I would like to make this point. I am very glad Brian Keenan got out, but I am sure there was a deal. I regret it. I think it was a pity. The Minister is shaking his head. Why are we having a visit by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, to Teheran? There has been some little negotiation inside the European Community that has allowed us to do this. I wonder if we are still bearing in mind Salman Rushdie, who is a hostage at the behest of the Iranians, who have sought to impose a death penalty on a citizen of the European Community. I think that is unacceptable. When we are thanking the Iranian Minister and the Iranian Ambassador for their help why do we not ask where this business of hostage taking started, because the Minister knows as well as I do, it started with the establishment of the Hezbollah financed directly from Teheran. I think there is something lamentable about thanking the very people who oppress, because that is the source of hostage taking and we are now grovelling and thanking them. They do not have my thanks. I think we should question very much indeed their bona fides.

The final point I am going to make — I have more I would very much like to say but perhaps there will be another opportunity — is about oil. I am amazed when I hear people on the wireless talking about "our oil". How is it our oil? It is under the feet of the Arabs. We may not like it, but it is theirs; and, as one of them said on the radio the other day — and I agree with him 1000 per cent —"If we were growing carrots in Kuwait nobody would give a damn". I am afraid to say he is absolutely right. It is a cynical situation.

One of the other speakers said we should be developing other resources. We should. A distinguished Member of this House, Senator McDonald, has demonstrated with his remarkable motor car that you can actually run a motor car for a year on an acre of rapeseed which will produce oil. Again, I am sorry that I have to curtail my remarks but I would like to allow other Senators to contribute.

Mr. Calleary

Iraq would not have gone into Kuwait but for the oil.

Mr. Norris

I quite accept that.

Acting Chairman

Before I call the next speaker I am sure Senator Norris would agree with me that his contribution came about mainly because of the concession by Senator O'Reilly.

Mr. Norris

I would like to thank Senator O'Reilly very much for that. I did not realise that.

Acting Chairman

It was in that spirit that I had indicated that speakers following would be conscious of the shortness of time.

Mr. R. Kiely

I will be brief. We are all concerned about the troubles in the Middle East. Senator Norris mentioned that oil was the cause of it, but I think we should be more concerned about people rather than oil. I believe there are 50 Irish nationals in Kuwait and one of them is from my parish. That is what I am concerned about. She is a nurse there. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and his junior Minister have done everything possible to ensure that she will arrive home safely in Ireland whenever she is allowed to get a visa to go. The family appreciated the efforts made by the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs in contacting her in Kuwait. There are many more in Baghdad that we are concerned about. I would like to put on record that I was speaking to that girl's mother an hour ago and she said she definitely appreciated the efforts being made to contact her daughter in Kuwait. We must admire these nurses who go out to these countries. They are trained here in Ireland and they go out to these countries to help these people and to ensure that their health is preserved.

I do not agree with the embargo on food. People have a right to live and food should be allowed into these Middle Eastern countries to ensure that people can live. Because of a decision made by a ruling prince or a dictator, people under his regime should not be victimised and deprived of their essential needs to ensure living.

Many things have happened over the past week. The release of Brian Keenan is something we are all very proud of. I would like to congratulate the people involved, especially the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerry Collins, who displayed his diplomacy in ensuring the release of Brian Keenan, about which we were all elated last weekend. I would also like to commend the other people involved — my colleague, Senator Eoin Ryan, with whom I share an office, and the Andrews brothers — on their efforts to ensure the release of Brian Keenan. I would also like to commend you, Sir, for your efforts to ensure that travesties of justice are rectified, especially your efforts on behalf of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. All this is something to be admired and something we should be proud of here in this House — that we have Members who will ensure that travesties of justice are rectified, whether it is on this island, across the Irish Sea or in the Middle East.

Acting Chairman

Thank you very much indeed. Senator Kiely, for your gracious remarks. I am sure that you, like the rest of the House, were pleased to learn that earlier today the case of the Birmingham Six has been referred yet again to the court of appeal. Let us hope that it is the beginning of the end of their long sentence.

Mr. O'Reilly

Obviously, our immediate national, domestic concern must be the welfare of our hostages and what kind of efforts we are making for their release. It strikes me at the moment that the position of our hostages calls into question the whole neutrality issue and our use of neutrality. It would appear to me that the Taoiseach may not be fully exploiting the value of our neutrality, if we are on the one hand neutral and if, in contrast to the Austrians, we are not in a position to take our people out of Kuwait and Iraq. My point there is that it does call into question how we are effectively using our neutrality.

On the matter of a communications centre and telephone contact with our hostages, I would be urging the Minister to put into immediate effect the proposal of my party to set up, or attempt to set up, a communications network to establish telephone contact between the families here and the hostages in Iraq and Kuwait. If our neutrality has any teeth, then that should be a minimum achievement.

There can be no question of this House condoning the action of Saddam Hussein. There can be no question of us believing that the form of regime or the occupation in dubious circumstances of Kuwait, is in any sense justifiable. That could not possibly be a tenable position. It is the action of a dictatorship. It is the kind of action that brought Ceausescu down in Romania; and ultimately this type of behaviour must bring about the destruction of any country and any regime. It is unacceptable behaviour. But, having said that, I think the point was well made earlier, and must be reiterated, that in many respects the problems of the Arab world have a post-colonial character, have their roots in imperialism in the past, in colonialism, in artificial boundaries drawn up on divide and rule principles. For that reason a particular international sensitivity to the Arab situation must be displayed, a particular sensitivity to the self-determination rights of these people and the aspirations of the Arab people.

I would submit that it should be an international position, and indeed an Irish position specifically, to achieve to the greatest possible degree a situation where solutions come from within the Arab countries through mechanisms defined by the Arabs themselves. That is the ultimate centre where we should look for solutions and it is only when we have exhausted potential to solve the problem in an Arab context that we bring international forces into effect.

We cannot lose sight of the fact tonight in Seanad Éireann that, were it not for the fact that the Americans and the Russians willy-nilly sold arms to the Iraqis, that they exploited the Iraqi desire for military might to sell arms and to appease war mongering elements in their country, basically to appease certain commercial and capitalist interests in their own particular countries, we would not have the problem today. It should reaffirm us in our commitment to bringing the arms race to an end. I look forward in the Minister's reply to his making the point and on every available public opportunity making the point clearly that were it not for the Americans and the Russians supplying the arms to fuel the Arab conflicts in the Middle East there would not be such conflicts. We can never escape that responsibility in the West.

I think at the moment we have a second domestic concern. We must also adhere to our principles in that we want to achieve peace and a reduction of the arms race. That is our philosophical international position. Our immediate domestic concern is the hostages, but our second domestic concern must inevitably be the question of the beef industry. There can be no doubt that this represents at the moment the most perilous time, the most extraordinarily difficult time, in recent history for the farming community. That is a view accepted by commentators right across the board. Because of the specific difficulties of the farming community at the moment the problems in the beef industry have massive implications. For that reason I welcome the section in the Minister's speech specifically making the point that there will be an opening up of trade with Iran at the moment. I do not share — and I have great respect for my learned colleague — Senator Norris's quibbles on that issue. I truthfully believe we have no option but to start doing business with Iran at the moment because of the precarious situation of our farmers.

I have another general point to make. I do not believe, could never believe, could never accept, nor should this House accept, that it would be right, that it is right, that it can be right to make food a part of the sanctions against Iraq. They cannot be——

Mr. Calleary

They are not sanctions.

Mr. O'Reilly

——international sanctions against Iraq. It cannot be acceptable that we in any sense would concur with the introduction of sanctions involving removing food from young babies and removing medical supplies. I do not believe that that is right in respect of a vulnerable population who are no doubt exploited by factors outside their control all the time. In conclusion, my essential view — and I am conscious of the time factor and your accommodation in that respect. Sir — is that we must keep pressure on for the release of our hostages and at the minimum establish direct telephone contact with them for the families. We must make our neutrality meaningful. It is my submission to the Minister that we have not so done today or we would be in the Austrian position. That is the first point. The second is that we must pursue the beef business with Iran and the third is that we must urge the removal of food as part of any international sanctions. The last point is this, I do not believe that this House should endorse a position where we will do anything other than concur with general United Nations approaches. We should not become part of any belligerence in the West or among Western powers. We should never, never become part of an international diplomacy, an international approach to politics that would be instigated or conducted by The Sun newspaper or the Daily Mirror.

Acting Chairman

As it is now 5.30 p.m. I would like to call on the Leader of the House to move the Adjournment.

Mr. Fallon

Before moving the Adjournment, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs for his statement to the Seanad this evening on the problem of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and other problems and, indeed, all the Senators who took part in this debate. I would like to mention briefly that some weeks back when we had an expectation of the release of Brian Keenan, we were ready for a debate but it did not happen. I share the joy and the delight of so many thousands of people, his family and friends, and not forgetting people like Senator Eoin Ryan and Senator Michael Lanigan, who in a quiet way over the last number of years have all been involved in many ways in helping the release of Brian Keenan. We are very pleased with this and we look forward to the release of further hostages in the future.

The debate has been worth while. It was extended by one hour and we gave as much time as possible to it. It was a good debate and I would like to thank all concerned. I now move that the House stand adjourned sine die.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.35 p.m. sine die.