The second issue was very important, but I will first reply on the question regarding weapons of mass destruction. Whatever happened in the end, Deputy Kenny has raised an important matter. Our approach to the issue and all that we said at the time in support of the UN line in the months leading up to the war, right back to 2002, was based on Security Council resolutions dating from 1991, in which the Security Council stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That had never been denied, but now it is proper to say that they were never there. That was not the case, however, and in all those resolutions the Security Council was absolutely satisfied of the position. When Security Council Resolution 1441 was adopted, the Security Council was acting in the belief that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction, and that belief was widely shared in the international community. The General Affairs Council, when it met in November 2002, could not have been more clear when it stated its belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. That was in spite of there being disagreement among member states about how to deal with the situation. However, there was no argument about whether there were weapons.
In the report — one of the last — issued to the Security Council in March 2003, Dr. Blix, who was the head of UNMOVIC, said that the arms inspection team mandated to investigate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had said that many questions relating to them remained unanswered. He had spent the previous seven months trying to get those answers. Regardless of whether those weapons still existed when he made that statement or when the war was about to start, Iraq was in material breach of its disarmament obligations to Dr. Blix and his colleagues and had failed to co-operate fully with the arms inspectors carrying out their mandate to verify that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction.
The Irish position on Iraq remains one of support for the role of the UN. We will continue in our work, and not a week goes by without our having contact with Secretary General Annan regarding his efforts to maximise, within the existing political and physical constraints, the role and activities of the United Nations in Iraq. During our Presidency we will continue to support efforts aimed at reaching an international consensus and a way forward.
On the Deputy's second question, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will be in Afghanistan this week as part of the Presidency. I have read the prepared documents and, regardless of the percentages, which I cannot recall, the Deputy is correct. The only policy of the Taliban which I regarded as useful was their anti-drugs policy. Last year, the growing of opium crops recommenced and has reached an all-time high. There is no doubt that these crops will turn into drugs on our streets, as happened last year, and quantities are bound to increase around the world. The Minister will raise that issue.
It is no good for me or the Deputy to state in the House that the growing of such crops should stop. A way must be found to help the people involved or subsidise them to grow other crops. From what I have read recently, they do not get much money from them. The world community, if it really wants to stop the trade, and everybody agrees we do, must find a way of giving them aid and assistance to get them to move to alternative ways of making a living. The people involved live among bushes and rocks so they do not make much money out of their crops; others do.
This is an enormously important issue and I am sure the Minister will report to the House on his meetings this week in Afghanistan, where he will have an opportunity to meet Mr. Karzai and others. I know they are trying but I understand that their powers are still limited to Kabul and they have not managed to regain much ground in the hinterlands to which many of the warlords have returned. We will receive a report on this major issue.