Full text of Dail debate on "Recent developments in relation to Iraq."
Dáil Éireann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.
Paidir.
Prayer.
Business of Dáil.
Ar iarratas an Taoisigh, déanaimse, Ruairí Ó hAnnluain,
Ceann Comhairle Dháil Éireann, leis seo Dáil Éireann
a chomóradh chun teacht le chéile ar 10.30 a.m., Déardaoin,
an 20ú lá de Mhárta, 2003, i dTeach Laighean, Baile
Átha Cliath, chun na cora is déanaí i ndáil leis
an Iaráic a phlé.
At the request of the Taoiseach, I Rory O'Hanlon, Ceann Comhairle of Dáil
Éireann, hereby summon Dáil Éireann to meet at 10.30
a.m. on Thursday, the 20th day of March, 2003, at Leinster House, Dublin,
for the purpose of discussing recent developments in relation to Iraq.
Rory O'Hanlon,
Ceann Comhairle.
Arna dhátú an 18ú lá seo de Mhárta,
2003.
Dated this 18th day of March, 2003.
An Ceann Comhairle: Under Standing Order 24 the business of today's special
sitting is confined to the subject matter set out in the summons. I call
the Taoiseach to make the proposal in that regard.
Order of Business.
The Taoiseach: Under Standing Order 24 the business for today is No. 1,
motion re recent developments in Iraq. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything
in Standing Orders, that the proceedings on No. 1 shall, if not previously
concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 4.30 p.m. today. The following
arrangements shall apply. The speech of the Taoiseach and the main spokespersons
for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall
be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case.
The speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 20 minutes in
each case and Members may share time. The Minister for Foreign Affairs shall
be called upon to make a speech in reply which will not exceed 20 minutes.
An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with the motion agreed?
Mr. Kenny: I object to this. The House meets today in special session to
discuss a situation where an invasion has taken place in Iraq and war has
been declared without a UN mandate. Part of the discussion here involves
Ireland's support for this war. I have had many requests from Members on
this side of the House who wish to contribute to this debate and because
of that I suggest the Whips should get together to work out a more acceptable
timeframe. I object to the time limit of 4.30 p.m. that has been put on this
debate.
Mr. Rabbitte: I agree with Deputy Kenny. Given the gravity of the situation
and the fact that so many Members on both sides of the House want to contribute,
the time is inadequate. The explanation is that the Taoiseach and the Minister
for Foreign Affairs have to leave for Brussels. That can be accommodated,
if necessary. The House has managed to do important business in recent times
in the absence of the Taoiseach.
Mr. Sargent: The gravity of the issue we are here to debate warranted a
meeting of the Whips before the session to evaluate and plan how the debate
could be dealt with most effectively. It is a matter of considerable regret
that this unilateral pre-emptive action by the Government has meant that there
has been no input on the length of the debate or on the need for questions
to clarify Government policy, which is bizarre. This needs to be addressed.
The debate should be longer, the House should have an input into how it
is structured and there should be a period for questions. We should resolve
this before we proceed.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I join with my colleagues on
the Opposition benches in requesting that the Taoiseach indicate before business
proceeds that he will instruct the Chief Whip to allow a meeting of the
Whips whereupon they can determine an extension of the time to accommodate
full participation by Members of the House. In reality, the time allocated
allows for only myself and a colleague from my team to participate in a
very limited way. Time is severely constrained and I ask the Taoiseach,
given the gravity of the matter we are here to address, to accede to the
Opposition request for an extension of the time allowed.
The Taoiseach: I cannot accede to that request. I made a commitment to
the House----
Mr. Gogarty: Which House? The White House.
The Taoiseach: -----that I would recall it under Standing Orders if a war
developed. This is not a unilateral decision. It is my prerogative and it
is the only way of recalling the House. Obviously, Deputy Sargent does not
understand the Standing Orders, but that is the position.
Mr. Sargent: I understand them all too well.
The Taoiseach: On 29 and 30 January and 11 and 18 February we had debates
on Iraq. On Leaders' Questions I have taken an average of two to three questions
on Iraq every week.
Mr. Sargent: We are looking for answers.
The Taoiseach: The six hours today should allow representatives of all
political parties in the House to state their positions. This country will
not be participating in military action. It will not be participating in
war because-----
Mr. Gormley: The Taoiseach is facilitating it.
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption,
please.
The Taoiseach: -----there is no second resolution, as I outlined continually.
Most Parliaments, including those involved in the war, which have had a
debate this week and which are much larger than ours, have not spent anything
like the proportion of time we have spent discussing the matter. I hope
we can have a reasoned debate today. I know there are people with different
views and that they feel passionate about these issues. We have control
over some of the issues, but not over most of them. In the six hours allowed,
parties and their spokespersons will have an opportunity to put their views
in a non-personal and non-acrimonious way, and I look forward to this.
Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with recent developments in
Iraq be agreed to".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 56.
Tá
Ahern, Bertie. Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael. Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry. Ardagh, Seán.
Blaney, Niall. Brady, Johnny.
Brady, Martin. Brennan, Seamus.
Browne, John. Callanan, Joe.
Callely, Ivor. Carey, Pat.
Carty, John. Cassidy, Donie.
Collins, Michael. Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
Coughlan, Mary. Cowen, Brian.
Cullen, Martin. Curran, John.
de Valera, Síle. Dempsey, Tony.
Dennehy, John. Ellis, John.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot. Fleming, Seán.
Gallagher, Pat The Cope. Glennon, Jim.
Grealish, Noel. Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary. Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire. Keaveney, Cecilia.
Kelleher, Billy. Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus. Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor. McCreevy, Charlie.
McDaid, James. McEllistrim, Thomas.
Martin, Micheál. Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Donal. Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael. Nolan, M.J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O'Connor, Charlie. O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donnell, Liz. O'Donoghue, John.
O'Keeffe, Batt. O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Malley, Fiona. O'Malley, Tim.
Power, Peter. Roche, Dick.
Ryan, Eoin. Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan. Smith, Michael.
Treacy, Noel. Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary. Walsh, Joe.
Wilkinson, Ollie. Woods, Michael.
Wright, G.V.
Níl
Allen, Bernard. Boyle, Dan.
Breen, Pat. Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard. Burton, Joan.
Connolly, Paudge. Costello, Joe.
Coveney, Simon. Crawford, Seymour.
Crowe, Seán. Cuffe, Ciarán.
Deenihan, Jimmy. Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien. Enright, Olwyn.
Ferris, Martin. Gilmore, Eamon.
Gogarty, Paul. Gormley, John.
Gregory, Tony. Harkin, Marian.
Hayes, Tom. Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D. Hogan, Phil.
Kenny, Enda. Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Padraic. McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Finian. McGrath, Paul.
McHugh, Paddy. McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Gay. Morgan, Arthur.
Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda. Murphy, Gerard.
Noonan, Michael. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
O'Keeffe, Jim. O'Shea, Brian.
O'Sullivan, Jan. Pattison, Seamus.
Penrose, Willie. Quinn, Ruairi.
Rabbitte, Pat. Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Eamon. Sargent, Trevor.
Sherlock, Joe. Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet. Stanton, David.
Upton, Mary. Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tà: Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl: Deputies
Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Foreign Conflicts: Motion.
The Taoiseach: I move:
That Dáil Éireann, noting the imminence of military action
by a United States led coalition against Iraq:
- reaffirms Ireland's commitment to the United Nations as the guarantor
of collective global security and as the appropriate forum for the resolution
of disputes threatening international peace and security;
- condemns the continued refusal of the Government of Iraq over a period
of 12 years to comply with its obligation to disarm as imposed by numerous
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, most recently in Resolution
1441;
- recalls that Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of its obligations
under relevant resolutions, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply
with these obligations and recalled the Security Council's repeated warnings
that Iraq would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations
of its obligations;
- expresses its deep regret that efforts within the Security Council to
reach agreement on how to address the question of Iraqi non-compliance have
failed;
- recalls Ireland's statement as a member of the Security Council on the
adoption of Resolution 1441 that it would be for the Security Council to
decide on any ensuing action in the event of further Iraqi non-compliance;
- regrets that the coalition finds it necessary to launch the campaign
in the absence of agreement on a further resolution, notwithstanding the
claims of the coalition to be acting on the basis of an existing Security
Council mandate;
- endorses the decision of the Government that Ireland will not participate
in the coalition's proposed military action against Iraq;
- expresses its earnest hope that military action, should it occur, will
be of short duration and that loss of life and destruction will be kept
to a minimum;
- declares its commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial
integrity of Iraq;
- calls on all parties to any conflict to respect the provisions of international
humanitarian law, in particular, the Geneva Conventions;
- welcomes the stated intention of the coalition to act swiftly to address
the food and humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people;
- welcomes the arrangements put in place by the Government to ensure that
Ireland will be able to contribute rapidly to the humanitarian effort in
Iraq;
- calls on the United Nations to assume a central role in securing the
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and the reconstruction of Iraq in
which Ireland will play its full part;
- recalls the long-standing arrangements for the overflight and landing
in Ireland of US military and civilian aircraft; and
- supports the decision of the Government to maintain those arrangements.
I requested you, a Cheann Comhairle, to recall the Dáil so the House
can consider the serious deterioration in the international situation regarding
Iraq. Since my request was made, war has commenced and I can only hope and
pray, as do all Deputies, that the war will be concluded quickly and that
the Iraqi people will be liberated from their present circumstances. They
must be allowed to rebuild their country and determine their future as a
sovereign people. Hopefully, this war will not last long and they will be
able to do that.
The Government, like the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland and
around the world, had hoped that we would never reach this point. We are dismayed
that efforts to secure Iraq's disarmament by peaceful means have failed.
People are asking how we have arrived at this situation. Why did diplomacy
fail? Why was it necessary to resort to military force? Why could the Security
Council not agree? Why was the European Union so deeply divided? The answers
are far from simple and I will not be able to deal with all of them today.
One thing, however, is clear. Conflict could have been avoided if Saddam
Hussein had complied with the long-standing demands of the UN Security Council
that Iraq surrender its weapons of mass destruction. The simple fact is
that he refused to do so.
No credible commentator would dispute the fact that Iraq is ruled by an
evil and cruel military dictatorship. It is a regime which tolerates no dissent
and no protest. It has engaged in territorial aggression and genocide against
its own people. I will not list all the wrongdoings of this regime but will
limit myself to its defiance of the United Nations.
Saddam Hussein refused to comply with 17 Security Council resolutions over
12 years. He forced his people to suffer the effects of economic sanctions
rather than meet his obligations under the UN Charter. While the members
of the council, including Ireland, worked to ameliorate the effects of the
sanctions, Saddam sought to obstruct the oil for food programme and used
the suffering of Iraqi children as a propaganda tool against sanctions. He
defied every effort to disarm him peacefully. In 1998, he broke his agreement
with Kofi Annan to meet his disarmament obligations and threw out the weapons
inspectors.
He allowed them to return last year, following the adoption of Resolution
1441, only in the face of a credible threat of military force. However,
despite the clear indication by the Security Council that he was being given
a final opportunity to disarm, he continued with his old ways. Since then
he has played a skilful game of cat and mouse. He has done just enough to
encourage those who wanted to believe that he might comply peacefully but
never enough to demonstrate a clear and unambiguous commitment to disarmament,
as the United Nations repeatedly demanded. He has miscalculated, and not
for the first time. Tragically, the long-suffering Iraqi people will once
again be obliged to pay the price for his lack of judgment. Let us hope that
this will be the last time they have to do so. He has not only caused suffering
to his own people, he has also, by his ongoing defiance, served to undermine
the authority of the UN Security Council.
Like the overwhelming majority of countries in the United Nations, Ireland
has no mighty armed forces to protect its interests. We are not a member
of a military alliance. We look to the United Nations as the guarantor of
our collective peace and security. Ireland wants to see a strong and effective
United Nations. We want a United Nations which is united in purpose as well
as in name. We want a United Nations that is respected. We need a Security
Council which is capable and willing to ensure that its resolutions are
fully implemented.
On New Year's Eve last, Ireland completed its two-year term on the Security
Council. We did our utmost to ensure that the Security Council discharged
its mandate to maintain international peace and security. The attacks of
11 September 2001 demonstrated that the world had entered into a new and
dangerous era. The optimistic suggestion put forward in the aftermath of
the Cold War, that we had reached the end of history, proved to be seriously
premature. Instead, we realised that deep and mutating hatreds had travelled
with us into the 21st century.
Two particular threats have emerged. The first is from ruthless and determined
terrorists, who represent no state and who operate from bases in unstable
countries. Ireland used its position on the Security Council to urge a multi-dimensional
response to this phenomenon. We supported the immediate need for a strong
security approach: fighting the terrorists directly through military and
police action, breaking up the terrorists logistical support channels, and
cutting off their finance. We also urged that action be taken to tackle the
root causes of conflict: intolerance, poverty, and the denial of rights and
freedoms.
The second emerging threat to international peace and security is from
the spread of weapons of mass destruction. What is particularly alarming
about these new threats to international peace and security is the possibility
that they will intersect. Terrorists might acquire from weak and unstable
regimes their own weapons of mass destruction. This would enable them to
inflict untold death and injury on those who find themselves the focus of
their hatred.
The Iraqi regime has a proven record of seeking to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. It has shown a willingness to use such weapons against its
enemies and even against its own people. It has defeated all efforts to
make sure that it surrenders these weapons. It has shown a willingness,
given the opportunity, to strike directly against US targets.
On 8 November 2002, the Security Council, of which Ireland was a member,
agreed unanimously to adopt Resolution 1441. This resolution found Iraq
in material breach of successive UN resolutions and gave its regime a final
opportunity to meet its disarmament obligations.
During the period leading up to the adoption of Resolution 1441, Ireland
worked discreetly but effectively to encourage consensus in the Council.
We encouraged members to work from a single text and to refuse support for
any course of action which looked likely to cause division in the Council.
The outcome was a vindication of our constructive approach.
As Head of Government of one of the members of the Security Council which
worked for many weeks to achieve the adoption of Resolution 1441, I say
quite emphatically that Resolution 1441 was clearly intended as a final
chance resolution. Serious consequences were threatened in the event of continued
non-compliance. The point at issue, at the time, was whether the decision
to resort to force was to be taken by the Council or whether it was open
to member states to act on the basis of existing resolutions. The Council
reached a compromise whereby it decided to convene immediately upon a report
of Iraqi obstruction and non-compliance "in order to consider the situation
and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions
in order to secure international peace and security".
Ireland made its position clear in the Security Council, immediately after
the vote. We said it was for the UN Security Council to determine what action
should be taken in the event of continued Iraqi non-compliance. Other members
of the Council, including most notably the United States, stated their view
that a second resolution was not a precondition for military action. They
pointed to their strong conviction that there was an outstanding mandate
for the use of force based on previous resolutions. They were not willing
to bind themselves to the obligation of waiting for a future resolution which,
in their view, might unreasonably be denied.
There is no clear legal consensus on whether such a mandate exists. The
arguments advanced by the coalition are supported by a number of countries
which are not participating in military action. Ireland, however, cannot participate
in a military campaign without an explicit, further UN mandate.
I regret that Ireland's term on the Security Council concluded at the end
of last year and that we were consequently unable to assist in the efforts
to implement Resolution 1441. I do not know whether we could have helped
resolve the divisions which emerged-----
Mr. Gormley: No.
11 o'clock
The Taoiseach: -----but it has been frustrating to watch the unanimity
which prevailed on the adoption of Resolution 1441 give way to division
and recrimination. It was clear for some time that the only prospect of
persuading Saddam to disarm lay in convincing him that a united international
community was prepared to resort to force to disarm him.
The build up of US and British forces in the Gulf is widely recognised,
including by Kofi Annan and Hans Blix, as the only reason Saddam Hussein undertook
even limited co-operation with the inspectors. Unfortunately, the divisions
on the Council led Saddam to believe he could continue to evade compliance
and get away with it.
Ireland deeply regrets the loss of cohesion on the Council. We avoided
taking sides and repeatedly urged all members of the Council to work together
to achieve consensus. In an effort to overcome the emerging differences,
Government representatives, on several occasions in recent weeks, urged
members of the Council to address three questions. What precisely does Saddam
have to do? How long does he have to do it? What will be the consequences
if he does not do it? Had these questions been addressed in good time, we
might not have ended up where we are today.
Ireland hopes the military action can be concluded as soon as possible
with the least possible loss of life. We call on Saddam Hussein to put the
people of Iraq first, to vacate the scene and allow this situation to reach
a peaceful conclusion. There can only be one outcome to this conflict. Saddam
will lose but he can still spare his people further suffering.
We made it clear on the adoption of Resolution 1441 that we expected any
decision to sanction the use of force to be taken by the Security Council
itself in a further resolution. The Government cannot, therefore, participate
in the military action under way.
We recognise that those states carrying out the current military action
claim they are doing so under the existing mandate arising from previous UN
resolutions. The legal arguments in favour of this position have been set
out by the British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, and have been widely
reported in the Irish media.
Today the world looks on in deep concern. Lives will be lost on both sides.
The Iraqi people will almost certainly suffer hunger and death. Iraq and
the wider Middle East region could be destabilised. I call on all parties
to this conflict to pay full respect to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions
and their protocols and other relevant provisions of humanitarian law.
Our position on this conflict is clear. The Government regrets that the
United States led coalition has found it necessary to launch the campaign
in the absence of agreement on a further resolution. I said some weeks ago
that a second resolution was a political imperative. In its absence we have
to conduct ourselves in a manner which is in keeping with our Constitution
and with our interests and we will do so.
On the separate question of whether Ireland should continue to facilitate
the landing and overflight of aircraft belonging to states engaged in the
present military action against Iraq, essentially, we are talking about
US military aircraft and civilian aircraft carrying military personnel and
equipment on behalf of the US Government.
The Government discussed the matter at length yesterday. We decided not
to change our current policy on stop-overs or overflights.
Deputies: Shame.
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
The Taoiseach: I assure the House and the people that the Government has
carefully considered what is best for this country in a very difficult situation
where no simple answers exist. We took a decision after long reflection.
We took into account the present circumstances, the principles that underpin
our foreign policy-----
Mr. Gormley: Or lack of.
The Taoiseach: -----our international relations and our broader national
interests. The issues are not black and white. International relations involve
difficult dilemmas. It is easy to address issues in absolute terms. The
responsibility of Government does not always allow that luxury.
There is a number of important factors relevant to our decision. The first
and crucial consideration is that the Government does not regard the provision
of landing and overflight facilities to foreign aircraft as participating
in a war.
(Interruptions).
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
The Taoiseach: This has been the consistent position of successive Irish
Governments and was our position in relation to the Gulf War. At that time
the Government pointed out that whether any role adopted or action taken
by the Government in relation to a Gulf War would constitute participation
in that war is, in the last analysis, a question of substance and degree.
The Government then and now maintains that merely to permit the use of a
civilian airport in this manner is not of sufficient degree or substance
to constitute participating in the war.
The provision of facilitates does not make Ireland a member of a military
coalition nor does anybody regard us as such. We remain militarily neutral.
The decision we have taken on this issue is our own.
Ireland has made over-flight and landing facilities available to the United
States for the past 50 years. This period covers many crises and military
confrontation which involved the US taking military action without specific
United Nations endorsement, Kosovo being the most recent example. We did
not withdraw or suspend those facilities at any stage during that period
and there is no reason to act differently towards the US now.
Mr. J. Higgins: The Government is feeding the forces on their way.
The Taoiseach: No other country is known to be contemplating the withdrawal
of existing facilities from the United States. This includes Germany and
France who have been the strongest opponents of US intentions on the Security
Council. It also includes a number of Arab countries who have taken a strong
position against war.
Mr. J. Higgins: The Taoiseach should make history and act.
The Taoiseach: These countries would not accept that by maintaining over-flight
or landing facilities to the US, they are enforcing or participating in
US military action. It would be extraordinary for Ireland to adopt the position
of opposition in regard to the US that no other country, not even its strongest
critics on the Security Council, is prepared to take.
Mr. Eamon Ryan: Except Austria.
The Taoiseach: The United States and Great Britain are our partners in
the Northern Ireland peace process, working with us to bring peace to our
island. They are our biggest trading partners and the biggest foreign investors
in the Irish economy. They are host to the biggest Irish communities overseas.
They share many of our political and civic values and they are particularly
worthy of our understanding where it is appropriate.
The Government is convinced that the withdrawal of such facilities at this
time could not but be seen by any objective observer as a radical and far-reaching
change in our foreign policy and in the long-standing national interpretation
of what is and what is not participation in a war. Any such change at this
time could only give succour to the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Boyle: Shame on the Taoiseach.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Boyle, please.
Mr. D. Ahern: The Deputy wants it both ways.
The Taoiseach: Any such change would also be seen by the United States
and its allies as the adoption of a hostile position in relation to their
country and their interests. Above all, it would create a precedent which
would run counter to our long-term national interests.
I recognise that the Government's position will not be welcomed by everybody
in the country. I know that many people are deeply concerned about the potential
loss of life in Iraq and want to signal their disassociation from that and
from what they regard as an unjustified war. The Government recognises these
concerns and the sincerity with which they are held. I have included in
the text circulated to Deputies a summary of the advice given to the Government
by the Attorney General on the issues which arise.
Mr. G. Mitchell: It is not here Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach: The international community must now turn its attention
quickly to the new Iraq which we all want to see emerge from the current
crisis. We must act together to preserve the territorial integrity of that
country and we must ensure that the constituent peoples of Iraq can live
in peace, freedom and equality. We must free the enormous resources of Iraq
so that its people can live in the prosperity that is rightly theirs. It
will not be easy but we cannot shrink from this challenge. The benefits of
Iraq's oil must be available to the Iraqi people. Iraq should thus have the
ability to grow and prosper in a way which has not been possible over the
past decade.
The Government has kept in close contact with the United Nations regarding
the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The Minister of State at the
Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, will address this issue in greater
detail later in this debate. The United Nations will have an important role
to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. Ireland, with the other member states
of the UN, should make sure this opportunity is fully taken up. I have written
to the Secretary General and the current President of the Security Council
to institute weekly humanitarian briefings on Iraq, as we did last autumn
on the question of Afghanistan.
The international community must recommit itself to achieving peace between
the Israelis and Palestinians. There is a severe risk that the current crisis
will distract the world community from dealing constructively and effectively
with this source of instability, both in the region and the world. In particular,
the world community must build on the road map for peace in the Middle East,
which is being drawn up by the United Nations, the United States, the European
Union and Russia.
The world now faces a dark and dangerous moment. The international community
is divided. We must reunite and work together and we must help build and
stability in the Middle East region and deal with the growing threat of the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These are challenges the world
cannot afford to ignore.
The motion my Government and I have placed before the House gives a clear
description of, and cogent justification for, the Government's approach
to this issue. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Gormley: A disgrace.
Mr. Kenny: I move amendment No. 8:
To delete all words after the fifth paragraph and substitute the following:
"- noting that UN Resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted, demonstrating
that agreement can be achieved by the UN Security Council;
- noting that in welcoming Resolution 1441, the Minister for Foreign Affairs
said on 8 November 2002 that the resolution provided for a clear sequential
process whereby the inspectors would report back to the Security Council,
which would assess compliance, make a decision on whether material breach
had occurred and 'what ensuing action is appropriate';
- noting the Government's stated objective of preserving the primacy and
importance of the Security Council as stated in Dáil Éireann
on numerous occasions;
- noting that the Taoiseach told the Dáil on 13 November 2002 that
Resolution 1441 was 'not a mandate for military action';
- noting that securing a second UN resolution was described as a 'political
imperative' by the Taoiseach as late as 19 February 2003;
- noting the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Dáil
Éireann on 11 February 2003 that 'force should only be used as a
last resort when every other possibility has been tried and failed';
- noting that Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector, has stated that
a critical path to a solution to the situation could be found in a short
time using Resolution 1284;
- noting that a second resolution was considered so important that it was
pursued at the UN until Monday last when it was withdrawn;
- noting the protection which the UN Charter gives not only for collective
security but for the existence of neutral countries under that security
and that neutrality could not exist without respect for the UN Charter;
- noting that there is no immediate threat to the security of the region
from Iraq unlike the Kuwait invasion which gave rise to the Gulf War;
- noting that the UN was established to prevent a repeat of the failure
of collective security by the League of Nations and the subsequent death of
60 million people in the Second World War;
- expresses its earnest hope that military action, should it occur, will
be of short duration and that loss of life and destruction will be kept
to a minimum;
- declares its commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial
integrity of Iraq;
- calls on all parties to any conflict to respect the provisions of international
humanitarian law, in particular, the Geneva Conventions;
- noting the close economic and personal ties between Ireland and the United
States and the United Kingdom and the enormous contribution which both countries
have made to international security;
- resolves, on the basis of the facts now known:
- that it opposes and cannot participate in, or support, in any manner,
the war which has commenced;
- that Ireland should work actively to restore the authority of the UN;
- that Ireland explore the humanitarian steps it can take to relieve the
suffering which will result from this war; and
- that the Taoiseach should raise at the European Council, the involvement
of the EU and the UN in the provision of humanitarian relief and the reconstruction
of Iraq following the war."
I begin with the words of the Taoiseach on 19 February 2003:
What is most important for the future. For future generations, Is that
the authority and the primacy of the Security Council is maintained because
what happens in the next crisis and the one after that? You have to have
international order for dealing with crises.
This special session of the Dáil, taking place when war has already
begun, is being held at a critical moment in the diplomatic history of this
country. It is a moment that demands clarity, determination and courage
and, above all, it demands conviction. It is a moment where Ireland must
not just declare its hand before the world, but actually play it.
We must not take the easy option, the shrugging option that because the
war has started, what we do does not matter. It does matter. It matters to
our international credibility now and in the future. It matters to our self-respect
as a nation. It matters to our respect for international law and the institutions
set up to implement that law.
Today the issue is we either believe in the legitimacy and primacy of the
United Nations, the international institution that has kept an often fragile
peace in this volatile and shrinking world of ours, or we do not. We either
agree to be bound by the carefully constructed processes and the decisions
of that institution or we do not. We either consolidate our hard-won political
position as a strong, neutral and non-aligned country or we join the supporting
cast of the coalition of the willing. In short, we either use or lose our
small but vital voice in international affairs, perhaps indefinitely.
This is a debate about a war of doubtful legitimacy, a war loathed by the
vast majority of the people of this country, but let there be no doubt this
is also a debate on the fate and the future of the United Nations and, therefore,
the fate and the future of the world, of which Iraq is such a tortured part.
We may see this war on television from a safe distance but we must not
allow distance to confuse us about the country being bombarded, Iraq, where
almost 50% of the population is under 15 years, infant mortality is ten
times that of the US, 70% of the population is dependent on the UN food
for oil programme----