I second the motion proposed by Senator Norris. I am glad the Minister of State used the word "occupation". It is difficult to make an appeal under the Geneva Convention concerning the responsibilities of occupying powers unless one admits those forces are in a position of occupation, which is what the invading armies are in Iraq.
Like Senator Norris, I opposed the war. Unfortunately, I can understand to some extent the Government's position. A very vindictive Government is in power in the United States of America. I was saddened by the words of Condoleezza Rice, an adviser to President Bush, who said France must be punished. If the US Government continues to adopt that approach internationally towards those with which it disagrees, especially on such serious issues, there is very little room for progress. I issued a newsletter on the war to some constituents and received a great deal of support for my opposition, especially from people who had worked in hospitals in Baghdad.
Like Senator Norris, I also objected to Saddam Hussein's activities during the years. Not only did we send him meat for his army, anyone from Iraq on whose behalf I sought asylum was refused. One was a surgeon from the Iraqi army who sought asylum because he was being asked to amputate the limbs of deserters from the army. He fled to Ireland where he had undergone some training. We did not even think at that stage of granting him asylum. We must examine the way we have behaved during the years and realise that we are now in a position within the European Union to act in a responsible way in this regard.
We are socially acceptable to the people of Iraq, which is a major advantage. We have an enormous responsibility to try to do everything we can to help them. The Minister of State pointed out the appalling decline in the health statistics in that country. This has been ongoing since the late 1980s. Maternal and infant mortality figures are now much worse than in Iran. Iraq was previously much better than its neighbour.
We have no idea of the number of casualties, civilian and military, in the last war in Iraq. Certainly, they are in their tens of thousands but the situation is such that thousands more are dying, especially children. This is due to the destruction of the health service and the looting of hospitals. It is extraordinarily important that we address this issue at once or the casualty figures from the war will be much higher.
There was something macabre about the G8 meeting taking place in a spa, Evian, full of clean water when, in another country not that far from Switzerland, obtaining clean water was one of the main responsibilities the occupying powers should have been undertaking. It is extraordinary that the oil wells have been secured while the water wells have not and that people are still drilling for water in their backyards. Precedence has been given towards securing the oil desired by the United States of America rather than securing the health of the Iraqi people. Senator Norris gave a vivid account of the spread of disease by water. This is appalling. I gather that in Iraq a child can expect to have about ten bouts of diarrhoea a year. It is very difficult for any child to survive in those circumstances.
We must examine other important elements also. Through the worst of times and thanks to UNICEF to a large extent, Iraq tried to keep its immunisation programmes operational. I presume all the supplies have now been looted. I take Senator Lydon's point that we prefer to supply aid towards this type of project rather than towards the firms which Senator Norris said were going to rebuild the country's infrastructure. Will Minister of State examine the immunisation programme in Iraq? There was a breakdown a few years ago and polio broke out again. They managed to resurrect their immunisation system and rectify matters through courageous work by some of their doctors. Polio has been eradicated internationally and it would be terrible if pockets were to break out again. Given that it is a water-borne disease, we need to examine this very carefully.
The armies of occupation have an enormous responsibility to protect the humanitarian aid workers in Iraq. It is understandable why so many excellent organisations have not returned foreign workers to the country. Their faces may not be very acceptable at present. I applaud the Red Cross and UNICEF for the work they do. Their people in Iraq are behaving in an incredible manner. We must put it to the military forces that they must protect them. This is not happening in Afghanistan. I listened the other night to an Irish aid worker, Patrick O'Brien, who said their lives were in danger all the time. It is important to remember that more UN humanitarian aid workers are killed internationally than members of peacekeeping forces. I have always found this an extraordinary statistic but apparently it is true.
The occupying forces must also assist the United Nations inspectors in examining the nuclear facilities that have been looted. One hears appalling stories of clothes being washed in barrels which were used to store nuclear residue or something similar. As happened after Chernobyl, this could lead to the spread of infected clothes throughout the country and would be a major factor in causing leukaemia. There are also the matters of depleted uranium weapons and cluster bombs scattered throughout Iraq which need to be dealt with. We have a duty to point out to the forces there that these are their responsibility. As this is covered by the Geneva Convention, it should not be very difficult to do.
What has been the fate of those people who were part of the regime and surrendered or were arrested by the occupying forces? I am thinking specifically about the two women scientists attractively nicknamed, Mrs. Anthrax and Mrs. Bacteria, or something similar. What has been their fate? We have heard nothing about them. It is fine to say they will be interrogated to obtain information from them but how valuable will that information be? The dreadful spectacle of Guantanamo Bay is still ongoing, a matter about which we should make representations.
I have spoken previously during business in the House and on the Adjournment about the scuppering by the United States of attempts to introduce a verification protocol to the 1972 United Nations convention on biological weapons and toxins, on which great work was done in Geneva for many years. When all was going well in late 2000 and early 2001 and we hoped something would be signed in July 2001 and the verification protocol agreed, the United States pulled out in July and stated it would bring something better forward in September. Almost two years later, nothing has been brought forward. The only country I know of where anthrax has been a problem is the United States of America. They never seem to have found who was responsible. It must be a cause of concern for people in America to know that someone is capable of obtaining anthrax, putting it in envelopes, sending it and no one has managed to find him. We need to hunt these people down in case they end up posting such envelopes to us. These issues are all extremely important.
I cannot understand why the occupying forces in the Kurdish area are, according to newspaper reports, refusing to allow the harvest to be brought in because they are afraid the Arabs and Kurds in the area will fight. However, the Arabs and the Kurds have stated that they have no intention of doing so. There are plenty of farmers in this House who can tell us that the harvest will not wait forever. Are the occupying forces trying to make these people even more dependent on aid from us? I would welcome it if the Minister of State could have this matter investigated.
I am glad that Senator Leyden talked about how the West nurtures dreadful dictators when it feels it is in its interests to do so and that it is only when they have gone completely crazy that we pull the rug out from under them. One wonders about the many countries – including Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and others in that region – whose despotic regimes are not being dealt with. What about the regime in Burma? We are delighted to hear that Aung San Suu Kyi is alive, but nobody has sent any troops to invade Burma. Even though the people voted in favour of a different Government, no one in the West felt there was any need for a regime change.
The Minister of State and his officials have a great commitment to this area. I compliment his officials on printing the Minister of State's speech on both sides of the paper. That is an environmental issue in which I am interested and it is well worth printing speeches in this way. I hope the Minister of State makes these points, because we have a very important voice in Iraq at present and we should use it.
We should also deal with some of the problems we have with the USA. I doubt whether US business interests in this country would withdraw their operations because we might object about the fact that people not being allowed to take in the harvest.