Dáil Éireann - Volume 560 - 30 January, 2003

Private Members' Business. - Foreign Conflicts: Motion (Resumed).

  The following motion was moved by Deputy Gregory on Tuesday, 29 January 2003:

    That Dáil Éireann:

    – notes the huge build-up of United States and British troops and weapons in the Middle East in preparation for a war against Iraq;

    – notes the relentless drive by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for such a war;

    – notes that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared on Fox News, ‘there's currently a state of war with Iraq that has not ended' (19 January 2003);

    – notes the systematic undermining by the US Administration of the work of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq and the pre-empting by the United States of the provisions of UN Resolution 1441;

    – notes the statement by Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq during 1991-98 and a supporter of the US Republican Party, that 90 to 95% of Iraq's previous weapons of mass destruction were verifiably put beyond use during that time;

    – notes a leaked UN report projecting potentially a large scale and protracted ground offensive, supported by aerial bombardment, giving rise to half a million direct or indirect casualties; a chronic situation in south and central Iraq for 4.2 million children under five and one million pregnant and lactating women, two million internally displaced persons and an unknown number of infirm, terminally ill and elderly; and the devastation of all major infrastructure facilities such as bridges, railroads, electricity supplies and the provision for potable water;

[593]    – notes that the United Nations sponsored economic sanctions against Iraq have already caused untold suffering among the ordinary people of Iraq, resulting in the premature death of hundreds of thousands of children;

    – notes the ongoing and regular, little reported, bombing by the United States and British air forces in northern and southern Iraq;

    – notes the sentiments of the Irish people expressed in an Irish Times-MRBI poll published on 1 October 2002 which found 68% of respondents profoundly opposed to unilateral US action against Iraq and 59% wishing this State to oppose any UN authority for action;

    – notes the widespread growth of popular opposition against a war in the worldwide protests held on 18 January this year, including an anti-war demonstration in Washington with up to 200,000 attending;

    – condemns the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and its suppression of human rights and national and ethnic rights; and

    – notes the widespread belief that the real motivation for a war on Iraq is the desire of the US Administration to control that country's oil reserves and increase its presence in the Middle Eastern region;

  calls on the Government to explain why it is:

    – facilitating the precipitation of a war in Iraq by allowing US military planes to land and refuel at Shannon Airport;

    – allowing a flagrant breach of the Defence Act 1954 and the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order, 1973;

    – in apparent breach of Article 5 of the Hague Convention (v) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers whereby ‘belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power'; and

    – in apparent breach of Article 28.3.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Irish Constitution, which directs that the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann;

  further calls on the Government to:

    – apply all possible pressure open to it to prevent an attack on Iraq by the United States or Britain; and

    – immediately withdraw all landing and refuelling facilities in Shannon Airport for US military planes and any other air[594]craft carrying US military personnel, arms or munitions that may be used in a war in Iraq;

  and calls for the future of the peoples and resources of Iraq and the Middle East generally to be determined by the people there, based on the principles of freedom, justice, democracy and human rights, free from both local dictatorships and imperialist or corporate interference.

  Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

    To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

    “– affirms that the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

    – reaffirms Ireland's determination to discharge its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council;

    – remains convinced that the use of force should be a last resort to be employed only after all other means have been exhausted;

    – notes the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 in which Ireland took an active part;

    – considers that this resolution provides the best prospect for resolving the crisis without the use of military force and for ensuring the removal of Iraq's capability to deploy or develop weapons of mass destruction;

    – records its dismay at the Iraqi Government's continued defiance over more than a decade of its obligations under Security Council resolutions, itsappalling record of human rights abuses both within and outside its borders,its aggression against its neighbours and its repeated failure to co-operate with UN-mandated sanctions, to the detriment of the civilian population of Iraq;

    – commends the various efforts being undertaken by the international community to find a peaceful resolution to this crisis and Ireland's contribution to these efforts;

    – encourages the Government in the active role which it plays, in the EU and other international fora, in the international community's efforts to resolvethis crisis peacefully;

    – calls upon the Iraqi Government to comply immediately and fully with the obligations imposed upon it by numerous decisions of the Security Council and in particular to co-operate proactively with the arms inspectors;

[595]    – expresses its support for the continuing work of the arms inspectors in carrying forward their task and commends their work to date;

    – calls on all Governments to extend every assistance to the arms inspectors, including the provision of relevant intelligence;

    – urges all parties concerned, and in particular the Iraqi Government, to make every effort to ensure that this crisis will be resolved by peaceful diplomatic means;

    – recognises that the ongoing granting of overflight and landing rights to US military aircraft and the transiting of US military personnel through Shannon Airport is consistent with arrangements going back decades and is being conducted in full accordance with all relevant constitutional and legislative provisions, most notably the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and dangerous Goods) Order, 1973 and section 317 of the Defence Act, 1954; and

    – welcomes the commitment of the Government, in the event of military action being initiated against Iraq, either with or without further UN sanction, to review the situation with regard to overflight and landing facilities and to initiate a debate in this House.”

  An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Breen was in possession. I understand he has concluded. I call on the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley.

  Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O'Malley): Debate in this House and elsewhere in recent weeks and months on the current situation in Iraq has provoked strong words and much passion. From my perspective, I regret that balance and a sense of proper context has been lacking in many of the contributions. I therefore welcome the statement made yesterday evening by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Cowen, as restoring some balance to the exchanges that have occurred on this matter, particularly regarding the use of Shannon Airport by foreign military aircraft and personnel.

  Undoubtedly, responsibility for the current crisis over Iraq lies with the Iraqi authorities and with Saddam Hussein in particular. The means to resolve it also lies with Saddam's regime and in full and genuine Iraqi compliance with the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. It is not enough to pay lip service to the wholly legitimate requests of the weapons inspectors. There must be complete and active provision of all necessary information in order that trust can be built and [596]confidence restored. International peace and security demands no less.

  Responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security lies with the UN Security Council. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, has outlined the lengths to which Ireland has gone over the years in our support for the Security Council, for multilateralism and international law. I fully endorse his remarks in this regard and I particularly reiterate the points made by the Minister concerning Ireland's responsibilities and obligations under the UN Charter. The entire UN framework is designed towards the promotion of peace and stability between nations, but it is not a pacifist organisation.

  A clear onus exists upon all countries to use whatever influence they have in support of the UN's primary objectives. In our case, Ireland has availed of every opportunity to do so which has presented itself at all levels of the United Nations and in our contacts with EU and US counterparts. That might not meet the demands of some who wish to see us engage in public denunciations and criticisms, particularly of the US foreign policy approach. However, I ask proponents of such actions in turn to specify what they think would be achieved as a result and how they would address the threat posed by Saddam and his regime.

  That threat has been well documented, most recently in the report by Dr. Blix and his colleagues. As the Minister, Deputy Cowen, has pointed out, no less an authority than the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has confirmed that in this instance the pressure placed upon Saddam has been effective and that without that pressure the weapons inspectors would not be back in Iraq today.

  It is in this context and in acknowledgement of its international responsibilities that the Government has permitted the use of Shannon Airport as a refuelling point for US aircraft and service personnel. However, we must also view these arrangements in the context of the long-standing friendly relations which have existed between Ireland and the US and the fact that the arrangements in question have been in place for decades.

  Nothing new is happening here and as a representative for the region, I point out that these arrangements have been good for Shannon over the years. Not least is the consideration that they have helped to maintain employment and contributed to the ongoing viability of the airport. I do not mean to imply that commercial significance should be the only yardstick by which we should judge these matters, but it is an important factor nevertheless.

  As regards security considerations, I welcome the announcement that security is to be upgraded at the airport. Employees at Shannon and residents living in the area are entitled to know that these matters are being properly addressed. At the same time, I hope that commentators on all sides, especially those who are critical of the Government's approach and the media in gen[597]eral, refrain from comments whose only effect is to create fear and uncertainty among the employees and local population. As the Government has made clear, it is unfair and disingenuous to claim that large quantities of heavy armaments and dangerous material are being transported through Shannon.

  Mr. J. Higgins: The Minister of State does not know because he did not check.

  Mr. O'Malley: While I acknowledge and fully share the hope conflict in the Gulf region can be avoided, it is important that the entire issue is considered in its proper context. The Government has not been a cheerleader for war, despite what some would have us believe. It has been serious and balanced in its approach and forthcoming in its commitment to allow for further debate on all aspects of the unfolding situation.

  In the meantime, Ireland is to the forefront in assisting the search for peace and has been clear in its position that the weapons inspectors should be given as much time as is proper to complete their work. Inspections cannot and should not go on indefinitely. However, it should be for the Security Council to determine the international community's next steps. Quite rightly, the Government and its EU partners are doing all they can to ensure these next steps are peaceful, but as I have already stated, key responsibility in this matter lies with Iraq. We all hope it lives up to this responsibility.

  Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Dea): I wish to share my time with the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and Deputy Killeen.

  An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

  Mr. O'Dea: The Government's position is that war in this situation is a last resort. War represents a failure of diplomacy. It is the earnest hope of the Government a peaceful solution can still be found, even at this late stage. It is also its position that it does not agree unilateral military action should be taken by the United States in the absence of a further UN resolution authorising such action. In the event of further military action being taken by the United States, with or without such a resolution, the Government will review the current arrangements at Shannon Airport.

  This is a neutral country. Historically, we have been militarily neutral. That is still the position. The essential definition of “military neutrality” is that one is not part of a military alliance and does not take part in any foreign military adventures. As I have said, that has been and remains the position. However, some interpret “military neutrality” to mean we should be politically neutered as a country. Everyone in this country, from the humblest citizen, has a right to take a position [598]and have an opinion on the great issues of the day, particularly the current impasse between the United States and Iraq. People have opinions which they are not afraid to express.

  On the current dispute between the United States and Iraq, I am unashamedly on the side of the United States which is led by people who are human, even though they may be flawed. It is a democracy with many failings and flaws. However, to put it and the United Nations on one side and the bloodstained dictatorship of Iraq on the other, I am unashamedly on the side of the United States. I believe I speak for the vast majority of people throughout the country when I say this. While saying I am on the side of the United States, I am not an uncritical, unthinking, cap-touching admirer of the United States. I do not admire all it has done and is doing. I think what happened in Kyoto was a disgrace. I do not understand its foreign policy in Korea, which can be best summarised as a mixture of bluster and appeasement. I do not agree with it taking a position between Iran and Iraq, and giving Iraq the weapons of mass destruction and the capacity to create such weapons of which they are now proposing to disarm them. Having said that, I will not go down the road of blind virulent unthinking anti-Americanism which puts people in the White House, however flawed, almost on the same moral plain as the butcher of Baghdad, causes people almost to make excuses for the barbarism of Saddam Hussein, the malevolence of al-Qaeda or the sheer evil of the Taliban.

  Whatever one might think about America, it has been a force for good in the world. Without it, Europe would still be under the shadow of al-Qaeda, lurking equipped and supported in its Afghan lair and Saddam Hussein would now be sitting in the oilfields of Kuwait, and probably Saudi Arabia, armed to the teeth with all sorts of weapons of mass destruction which he would make readily available to every terrorist organisation which needed them. Would the Good Friday Agreement be in place without the United States? We know the answer to that question. Without the United States, how many Muslims, whom they are supposed to want to destroy, would be dead in Bosnia today?

  In regard to Shannon Airport, as I understand it, nothing has changed, bar one exception to which I will refer. What is happening at Shannon Airport today is what has been taking place since its inception. The regulations were stated by the Minister last night. Clearly, they are the same regulations that have been in place since the airport was founded. It is a little known fact that during the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 Soviet troops, troops of that evil empire of the Soviet Union, on their way to Cuba to assist in firing nuclear missiles at the United States, were allowed to refuel at Shannon Airport without let or hindrance. I doubt if they were acting under a UN mandate.

  What has changed is that the Deputy Cowen is the first Minister for Foreign Affairs in the his[599]tory of the State to have tightened up the regulations. The term “munitions of war” on civilian aircraft carriers was interpreted by the United States as not including personal side arms. I can understand how it would be interpreted in that way but the Minister has now made it clear that it includes personal side arms for which permission must be sought. Under the Defence Act, 1954, the Americans did not bother to get permission to step off. Even though they did not go through immigration, they stayed in the transit area while the aeroplane was being refuelled. The Minister has now made it clear that they must get permission to wear uniforms while in the transit lounge.

  I recall between 1992 and 1997 when the Labour Party was part of the Government and Deputy Michael D. Higgins was a Minister, not once but on several occasions, going to Shannon Airport and witnessing the spectacle of United States troops in full military uniform in the transit lounge going off to God knows what military adventure. I wonder where was that latent volcano of pacifism lying dormant in Deputy Michael D. Higgins's breast at the time? What prevented him from coming flying to the boil? Was it the trappings of office or am I too cynical to imagine this? When some reach a certain age, they have a faith lift. Obviously, Deputy Higgins has decided to have one.

  Ireland and America are tied by ties of blood and friendship, as the Minister pointed out last night. Deputy Pat Breen articulated the local situation in Shannon very well last night when he pointed out that American investment accounts for 60% of investment in the Shannon region. It accounts for tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs, throughout the country. In the past we have often called on America for assistance and it has always answered the call. The Good Friday Agreement would not be in place but for the United States which has helped us in several other ways. What will we achieve if we prevent the Americans from using the facilities at Shannon Airport? We will inconvenience it by all of 20 minutes while they travel to Prestwick Airport in Scotland where they will be received with open arms.

  Are we prepared to turn our backs on all the American assistance we have received in the past, the American assistance we will need in the future and give the two fingers to American investment in this country? In other words, are we prepared to cut off our nose to spite our face for one day's headlines while the Americans are slightly inconvenienced? Who will replace the jobs that will be lost through lack of American investment and assistance? Deputy Joe Higgins will not give jobs to my constituents employed in Shannon and who are totally on the side of the Americans. Perhaps he will get his friend, Kim, the beloved father of the people of North Korea, to come and give them jobs. That is the reality on the ground. It is what the workers – Deputy [600]Higgins purports to represent the working class – in Limerick and Shannon are saying to me.

  Mr. J. Higgins: Why do we not start building a few B52s?

  An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister of State, without interruption.

  (Interruptions).

  Mr. O'Dea: There was an appalling attack last night on the Minister for Foreign Affairs when it was suggested he might have blood on his hands. No one in this country will have blood on their hands if America goes to war with Iraq. We did not create the impasse between America and Iraq and can do nothing to stop it. If we refuse the Americans the right to refuel, it will not stop the war in Iraq. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who are protesting peacefully in Shannon at present. While I do not condone criminal damage, I admire the fact that they are so sincere. If anybody has questions to answer about this matter, it is those whose actions and comments are encouraging Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad, who believes that he can continue to get away with flouting UN sanctions.

  Mr. J. Higgins: Who armed him?

  Mr. O'Dea: I refer to people like Deputy Joe Higgins.

  Mr. J. Higgins: Who sold him the arms?

  An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins, resume your seat.

  Mr. O'Dea: The Deputy should examine his conscience, if he has one.

  Mr. J. Higgins: The Minister of State should tell the truth about who sold him the arms.

  An Ceann Comhairle: I call the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera.

  Mr. O'Dea: Two wrongs do not make a right, as I have said.

  Mr. J. Higgins: The arms were sold to him by Mr. Rumsfeld, the very man who is now trying to disarm him.

  An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins will have an opportunity to contribute later in the debate if there is time.

  Mr. O'Dea: Deputy Higgins should examine his conscience.

  Mr. J. Higgins: Who sold him the arms?

  Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Miss de Valera): If one was to listen to some of the speakers opposite without [601]knowing the history of Shannon Airport since the 1950s, one could be convinced that the idea of military aircraft flying into Shannon was a new one. It has been pointed out in this debate that military aircraft of various nationalities have been refuelling at Shannon for many decades. Speakers have explained that the practice, which has been going on for over 50 years under successive Governments, has brought a great deal of prosperity to the airport and to the mid-west region. It is nauseating to hear the Opposition ranting about the phenomenon as if it were a new one. The Government has improved the implementation of existing arrangements. The UN Security Council has been attempting to convince Iraq to disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction for about 12 years, but a satisfactory response has yet to be received. Iraq has defied many UN resolutions. Would the UN inspectors be in Iraq without the credible threat of force?

  Mr. O'Dea: No.

  Miss de Valera: One only needs to have read last Tuesday's newspapers, which carried reports of what the UN chief weapons inspector, Dr. Hans Blix, said to the UN Security Council on Monday, to understand that UN inspectors are not receiving the co-operation they need if they are to carry out their work. Dr. Blix made clear that Iraq has not accepted its disarmament obligations and has failed to make a full disclosure of its biological and chemical weapons. He said that Iraq does not accept the UN's demands and that it has failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs. There are strong indications, according to Dr. Blix, that Iraq has produced more anthrax than it has declared and that it has weaponised the chemical weapon VX. It is clear that Baghdad has not actively co-operated with the UN inspectors to the degree that is required and it is hoped that it will use the extra time it has been given to comply, as nobody wants war. The best way to avoid war is for Iraq to co-operate with the inspectors. It has two weeks to comply with the UN resolution and it must do so, for everyone's sake.

  We should not have to contemplate the horrific human consequences of war and its destabilising global effects. The Government and the people want a resolution through peaceful means. Although Ireland is a neutral country, we should not bury our heads in the sand. We should contribute to the international debate by bringing to it views that are free, fair and unencumbered. Mr. John. F. Kennedy referred to Irish neutrality in his address to this House almost 40 years ago, a speech from which I have quoted on previous occasions. Mr. Kennedy said, “Ireland is not neutral between liberty and tyranny and never will be.” Ireland holds such a stance in relation to Iraq – the Government has tried in every forum available to it to raise a temperate voice in trying to avoid and avert conflict. International peace, justice, security and stability are the planks of our foreign policy.

[602]  The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, said last night that the UN is “the centre of this system of collective security”. He said that any defiance of the lawful decisions of the Security Council represents a challenge to the legitimacy of international order. It is important to remember that membership of the United Nations carries obligations and responsibilities. If Iraq fails to meet the conditions of the UN resolution, the Security Council will meet to decide on the further steps that may be necessary. The Taoiseach said yesterday that Ireland would have to reconsider the position in relation to Shannon Airport if unilateral action were taken by the US, the UK, or a combination of the US and the UK, in the absence of a UN resolution, in circumstances where the UN has not debated or agreed a resolution, or if there was no Security Council mandate for such action. The Government and the House would have to be consulted before a decision could be made.

  As a representative of County Clare, I am aware of the ties between the Shannon region and the United States, not only in historical terms but also in terms of the present-day economic reality. Some 541 US companies employ almost 89,000 Irish people in Ireland. US investment has played a major part in Irish economic recovery and is an essential part of the lives of many in the mid-west. Those who live in the area appreciate the value of the international airport and would like to see further security measures put in place there. The Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledged the latter request last night in the House. Deputies on all sides of the House fervently hope that wise counsel will prevail and that war will be averted.

  Mr. Killeen: I vigorously support the amendment tabled by the Minister, Deputy Cowen, last night and the position of the Government as outlined by him. Our position is reasonable, responsible and logical on foot of our position as members of the United Nations and in view of the complex nature of the issues under consideration. I welcome the fact that the Minister has clearly outlined the details of the arrangements in place for the use of Shannon Airport and I commend him for his considered and measured management of this intricate and evolving situation.

  Many of my constituents are mystified by the sudden interest in Shannon Airport on the part of those who were absent when their support would have been appreciated. They are equally amazed that politicians and others have suddenly discovered that the airport has been used for decades by US and other military aircraft. The vast majority of my constituents who have contacted me support the use of Shannon Airport by the UN military, subject to the current arrangements and conditions. They are also aware that military aircraft from 35 countries landed at Shannon last year. As the Minister has indicated, the procedures that set down the conditions for the use of Shannon Airport are strongly rooted in legislation and long-standing policy. We should [603]acknowledge the role and the professionalism of the Shannon Airport workforce in attracting such business.

  Deputies from County Clare frequently come into contact with asylum seekers and refugees, including Iraqi people, some of whom I know personally, as a consequence of the fact that Shannon Airport is in our constituency. I wish that some of those who oppose the pressure that is being placed on Saddam Hussein could meet the Iraqi refugees in Clare to hear about their experiences and those of the members of their families who have survived the brutal regime. Similarly, many people will have been impressed by the Iraqi man who spoke on this week's “Questions and Answers”. Under the Hussein regime, Iraq poses a threat to international peace and security. Ireland has certain obligations under UN resolutions – we are aware of the indiscriminate nature of terrorism – and there is no argument for not facing up to our responsibilities.

  Ms McManus: I wish to share time with Deputies Lynch and O'Sullivan.

  An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

  Ms McManus: The Labour Party supports the broad thrust of the motion moved by Deputy Gregory last night, although it does not necessarily agree with everything in it. I am surprised that the motion does not call on Iraq to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, but we will support it nonetheless. My party has stated its opposition to any US-led war with Iraq, especially as the UN inspectors have yet to complete their report and there is no Security Council resolution to that effect. In such circumstances, a massive conflict with potentially serious loss of life is unwarranted, unjust and against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Ireland, Europe and the world.

  The motivation behind US military action against Iraq without the express consent of the Security Council must be questioned. The US suffered an unimaginable tragedy when attacked by Osama bin Laden on 11 September 2001. We were told that the ultimate goals of the response to 11 September were to be regime change in Afghanistan and bringing bin Laden to justice. Despite the fact that these objectives were unfulfilled, the focus of the US Administration switched to confronting what it defined as an “axis of evil”. Any military action, therefore, is on the United States' terms.

  Saddam Hussein is an evil and brutal dictator, as demonstrated by his use of chemical weapons in 1988. He was responsible for the most heinous acts against his own people and he has been punished by the international community for that. Since the 1991 Gulf War his position has been seriously undermined by policies of containment advanced by European leaders and the crippling [604]sanctions imposed by the United States. However, the proposed military action by the United States and its allies contradicts international law. There is no evidence that this would be a just war. Nor will it necessarily be in response to a direct attack on US targets by Iraq. Unilateral regime change through military means is an unacceptable policy response and any country advocating it departs from international law and any pretence of being interested in workable solutions to the world's problems.

  The United Nations has not produced any resolutions advocating military action. Without this mandate, war cannot be supported. Under UN Resolution 1284, weapons inspectors were given a mandate to monitor and verify Iraq's military capabilities. Despite the wide range of powers the resolution granted to the inspectors, intense British and American pressure led to the Security Council's adoption of Resolution 1441, under which the inspectors currently operate. The inspectors, however, have been reported as saying their current efforts are being undermined: the USA and the United Kingdom seem to have already opted for war. Their update of 27 January 2003, presented to the Security Council, advocated giving Iraq one last chance before even considering war. It is essential that the inspectors are given all the time necessary to discharge their mandate fully. This request has been backed by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and the German Government, which currently holds the Presidency of the Security Council. Dr. Blix has welcomed US offers to provide intelligence on Iraq's weapons in order that the inspectors may complete their task as soon as possible. He recognises that Iraq still has many questions to answer, but it is unlikely that Saddam Hussein will reveal his full military capability while the threat of war is present.

  In more than two months of work the inspectors have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, Dr. Blix told the Security Council that, on the whole, Iraq had co-operated rather well. While some of the criticism of the Iraqi authorities made by him is significant and while pressure must continue to be exerted on Baghdad to co-operate in all respects, these certainly do not constitute grounds for war. The UN inspection regime has proven effective in the past. It should be remembered that between 1991 and 1998 UN inspections detected and secured the destruction of far more weapons than were destroyed either in the Gulf War or in the subsequent and largely unpublicised bombing campaign by US and UK forces, which is still ongoing. The extent of the US military build-up gives rise to the suspicion that the United States will proceed with military action regardless of the findings of the inspectors and irrespective of whether any further military action is sanctioned by the Security Council.

  In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night President Bush appeared contemptuous of the pre-eminence of the Security Council and the [605]United Nations. He said the United States would “consult,” but that “if Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm . . . we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” Such comments fall just short of declaring war, as little time is available for assembling this coalition. Meanwhile, the Government has continued to grant facilities at Shannon Airport to the United States, as it is entitled to give to any country during peacetime. The Labour Party sought a full debate on this matter to discuss the facilities that had been made available to the US military. The Taoiseach, however, has given only one and a half hours for statements from party leaders – a wholly inadequate response to our request. Specifically, we requested that the Taoiseach outline steps that had been taken to enforce section 317 of the Defence Act, 1954, which explicitly states: “No person shall, save with the consent in writing of a Minister of State, enter or land in the State while wearing any foreign uniform”.

  Should the United States proceed with military action without a UN mandate, what will be the Government's position on the use of Shannon Airport by a country involved in an illegal war? The Taoiseach faces bitter public opposition to the US presence in these circumstances and should declare clearly where the Government stands. His comments in the Dáil that in such circumstances the Government would review this policy is a complete abdication of responsibility. People are extremely concerned about precisely what is happening at Shannon Airport and what our part is in the military build-up. The Taoiseach has continually dodged these questions. Is it that he has no answer? Is it that he is not prepared to confront reality? Thus far, Ireland's role has been one of silent spectator as we drift towards war. There is much more that could be done to avert a war. This country should be mobilising international support for efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis.

  My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, has just returned from Iraq and I hope the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, will come into the House to hear what he has to say. He went there seeking to listen and understand the situation in the Gulf. I see no such effort from the Taoiseach or senior members of the Government to engage in this manner. The Government's silence on the threat of war and the use of Shannon Airport by the US military is in stark contrast to pronouncements from the German Chancellor, Mr. Schröder, and the French President, Mr. Chirac. Despite being prominent and influential members of NATO, they have stated they will do all they can to avert war. We are committed constitutionally to military neutrality, yet the Government has still to make a clear and unambiguous statement on the matter.

  We do not see what we should be seeing: a Government committed to using its power, politically and diplomatically, to exert pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with all relevant UN resolutions. It should implement some means of [606]inspecting the US aircraft at Shannon Airport rather than passively hiding behind muddled statements from Cabinet Ministers who seem to be totally confused about what is happening and what the Government's position is. Moreover, it needs to show a certain independence of spirit and join all the other countries trying to do their very best to prevent an illegitimate war, rather than acting as a conduit for a devastating conflict.

  Ms Lynch: War is the oldest solution to conflict. Since time began, we have been using it as a method of solving differences. It is the most unsuccessful solution, yet we continue to use it. Nobody has stood up and said Saddam Hussein is someone who must remain in power – we are all agreed on that. Deputy Killeen, who represents the Shannon area, said if those of us who were protesting at Shannon Airport had met Iraqis who had been forced out of their own country by a brutal dictatorship, we would have a different opinion. I know Iraqis. I know people who have fled the country between life and death and were lucky to get out. They are extremely concerned about the other members of their families who were not as fortunate as them. Not alone must they live with the sanctions already imposed, worried in case their children get sick and there is no medication available, they now also have the additional worry of being bombed in their beds because America has decided – whether because of oil or the next election – that it is going to war.

  Nobody was under any illusion about how long the stopover in Shannon Airport had been provided for and what its function was. What is happening now, however, is that Ireland, a militarily neutral country, is allowing vehicles to refuel in order to continue on a journey to amass for war. That is an entirely different situation. It defies logic that the Taoiseach, who is prepared to intervene in a dispute between a soccer manager and a player, has no opinion on what Ireland should do in relation to allowing military aircraft to refuel at Shannon.

  Those of us who are opposed to this war, as every right-thinking person should be, are not saying we are against the American people. All the research shows that the majority of American people do not want the war either. George W. Bush has decided he has found his niche in life which is to tell the rest of us that if we do not behave, he has the might and he is prepared to use it. There are only two groups of people who should be asked about whether one should go to war, those who have been there before and mothers. The former know its devastation and awfulness and the latter are not prepared to risk their children. If I was an average citizen in Iraq, I would pray, to whatever God I pray to, that Ireland would take a stand to try to seek an alternative to what now appears inevitable. There must be an alternative.

  I am equally convinced that if George W. Bush and his Executive thought that there would be [607]any resistance, they would rethink this war because it is about ensuring he is re-elected. It worries me that he is prepared to make such an enormous sacrifice to continue in power because power is never worth such sacrifice. I appeal to the Government to rethink its position in relation to refuelling at Shannon. The Government, which prides itself on being in touch with the ordinary person, particularly the Taoiseach, a man of the people, clued in to what people think, should ask people what they think and find an alternative solution.

  Ms O'Sullivan: I refute the accusations of being anti-American which have been fired across the floor of this House and outside it. It is a false and dishonest argument which seeks to divert attention away from the real issue. As my colleague, Deputy Lynch, who was on the march with me in Shannon, said, it is not about being anti-American. As far as we can tell, public opinion in the United States is sizeably against this war. Many political leaders are against the war and the Democratic Party has questioned George W. Bush, indicating they have serious concerns as to why the US Government wants to go to war now rather than go through UN channels.

  Large demonstrations in the US indicate the level of public opinion against the war. Americans remember the recent hit against them on 11 September 2001 as well as the Vietnam war and its consequences for them. I listened to an interview on “Today with Pat Kenny” yesterday with the “Gabby Cabby”, Mr. Franklin, who is a sounding board for public opinion in New York city. His anecdotal information from driving around New York city was that the large majority of US public opinion does not want it to go to war. To suggest we are being anti-American is entirely false and disingenuous and the notion should be put to bed once and for all. On the peace march in Shannon was a group describing itself as American citizens living in Ireland against the war. These Americans are willing to come out and campaign against the war.

  It is right that we, as a friendly country, speak out when we see that the US appears to want to go against international law by taking it upon itself to go to war without the sanction of the UN. World opinion in various countries, particularly France and Germany, supports that view. The weapons inspectors have looked for more time. They said if they had more time they could continue effectively with the job they have been given. There is no logical reason any Government should pre-empt the work of the weapons inspectors. Dr. Mohamed El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency indicated that a few more months were required.

  In the meantime, troops have been travelling through Shannon Airport. The figures we were given yesterday were that 19 flights in the past ten days carried munitions but many others probably did before that of which we were not aware. [608]I was in the airport some weeks ago and saw troops there. Many people I know who have been through the airport have also seen them so there are obviously huge numbers passing through the region in which I live, comprising an integral part of the build-up to war.

  One of the arguments for why we might have war sooner rather than later is that there are 250,000 troops in the Gulf region and they cannot hang around indefinitely waiting for action. Surely that is totally immoral, just as it is for Ireland to have been an integral part of that preparation for war. The Taoiseach is not willing to state categorically if he will stop the use of Shannon if the US goes it alone without the backing of the UN. Rather he says we will have a debate on the matter in the Dáil. That is immoral and runs against our law and constitutional neutrality. It beggars belief that the Taoiseach says we will have a debate when the time comes. The Government should be able to say categorically that if the US goes to war without the backing of the UN against international law, it will not allow our airports to be used. I call on the Taoiseach and the Minister of State who is here representing the Government to make that clear because, as someone who lives in and represents the region, I believe it is not good enough that the Government is not clear on the issue.

  If the US goes to war, it will kill many people, create total instability in a region that already has its fair share and have a major effect around the world. There is no evidence to suggest it will change the regime in Iraq, that it will produce weapons or have a positive effect.

  I watched a programme on TG4 last night about Afghanistan and the after-effects of the attacks on that country. The people said they still had to grow and export the opium that makes illegal drugs because no one has helped them in terms of infrastructure or other supports. The evidence suggests that after the US has got what it wants from attacking Iraq, it will continue looking after its own interests and the people of Iraq will be left to sort out the mess that is left behind.

  Mr. Sargent: I wish to share my time with Deputies Boyle, Connolly, Ó Caoláin and Morgan.

  An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

  Mr. Sargent: The Green Party is strongly of the view that this motion should be passed in Dáil Éireann today and acted upon accordingly. This morning I sought to raise, by way of Standing Order 31, that the Dáil be adjourned to clarify the veracity of the perception by the United States Embassy in Ireland that US citizens here are living under a threat of terrorism sufficiently large to warrant the need to be prepared to leave Ireland at short notice. I asked if the Government intends to issue a similar briefing to Irish citizens. We need to debate the matter. If it is an issue [609]serious enough for the US Embassy in Ireland, surely it is an issue which our Government should take responsibility for too. It is not a new scenario that is being discussed. On 14 January, a report in The New York Times from the Scott Air Force Base in Illinois stated:

    Troops and weapons moving towards the Persian Gulf have come under threat of possible terrorist attack according to military officials, who say they are more alert than ever to the risks. In the past three weeks United States intelligence have gathered what officials have described as credible evidence of a planned bombing of a passenger airliner contracted to fly troops and freight for the military.

A clear threat is being presented to the United States wherever it goes, and because Ireland is agreeing totally with the wishes of the United States in terms of refuelling at Shannon Airport we are subject to whatever threat the United States receives in that regard. Not only is our own population under threat, United States citizens in Ireland are also under threat, some of whom are working for the Green Party and also very aware of the need to halt this war.

  The people of Iraq are already suffering, not just from this particular episode of the Gulf War but also from the first Gulf War. It is chilling to read an American publication about the rusting tanks gathered in Iraq's southern desert like an open air exhibit of the 1991 Gulf War. It states:

    The rusting tanks are gathered in Iraq's southern desert like an open-air exhibit of the 1991 Gulf War. But these are not just museum pieces. This still radioactive battlefield – and the severe health problems many Iraqis and some US Gulf War veterans ascribe to it – may also be an omen of an unsettled future.

    As American forces prepare to take on Iraq in a possible possible Gulf War II, analysts agree that the bad publicity and popular depleted uranium (DU) used in the first Gulf War, and later in Kosovo and Afghanistan, have not dented Pentagon enthusiasm for its “silver bullet.” US forces in Iraq will again deploy DU as their most effective and most controversial tank-busting bullet.

For a country which has lived for so long in the shadow of Sellafield we are showing complete inconsistency and a lack of moral courage by allowing the possibility of depleted uranium being used in another war in the Gulf. A message is being received internationally that Ireland will go along with this as long as everybody else does. We have a responsibility to face up to the reality that we are a neutral country founded on peaceful resolution of disputes, which we should now be asserting.

  The Taoiseach knows that the Constitution states clearly we need to consult Dáil Éireann on this matter before participating in a war. He also knows he cannot avoid this, yet it is clear that the United States believes it is at war with Iraq [610]already, based on my having listened to Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush after 11 September 2001. A war is ongoing as far as they are concerned; it is just a matter of what shape it takes. We are infringing the Constitution by not having a vote on this matter.

  I was going to say the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were behaving like Pontius Pilate on this matter, but it increasingly seems that they are like Lady Macbeth, washing their hands because of the blood.

  Mr. Boyle: I have the distinction of being the only Member of the Dáil to have been born in the United States, a distinction shared by the founder of the party opposite. It was a birthright that enabled him to be a founder member of that party. My birthright and the experience of my formative years help inform me of a view of America that is a little more complex than some of the glib simplifications we hear from many participating in this debate.

  America is a country with which we share a strong affinity in terms of our history and culture. Its people are open, dynamic and determined. I am able to make a distinction between that affinity and my regard for the American people and being able to oppose the Government which represents them and the policy it presents to the world. To be anti-war is not to be anti-American. To be against George Bush and his Administration is not to be anti-American. Unfortunately, the debate we have been having has been ignoring some of these simple truths.

  Our historical and cultural relationship has developed even further in recent years. Our economic ties have grown stronger, involving 350 firms and almost 90,000 jobs. It has been suggested that these will be threatened by the nature and tone of the debate. However, I believe economic decisions made by American based multinationals are not informed by foreign policy but by the business sense that has enabled them to make profits worldwide. They are in this country because it makes economic sense for them to be here. Ireland provides access to a huge market and a workforce which is well educated and well motivated, and it enables such companies to take advantage of a very generous tax system, all of which will continue after this crisis has passed.

  We have to condemn strongly the operations of the American Administration. Unfortunately, the American people are being badly led, as are the people of this country. The people of America are being badly misled and dragged into a military conflict for motives that are less than pure, reasons that are far from explainable, and ends that are of questionable morality.

  I am not afraid to bring morality into this debate. I do not equate for one second the maladministration of President Bush and his cronies with the tyranny of Mr. Hussein and the Ba'ath Party in Iraq. However, I expect better from the world's biggest democracy. I expect the potential evident since the end of the Soviet Union and the [611]existence of a world system with only one superpower to bring about a more peaceful world. A democracy should not have to resort to violence.

  In the aftermath of 11 September 2001 one of the French newspapers led with the headline, “We are all Americans now”. While that headline was a piece of emotional hyperbole, a part of me will always be American. However, for me, to be American is to take a stand with the millions of Americans opposing the actions of their Government and bring about a world where the types of policies practised by this Administration cannot come into being.

  Mr. Connolly: The world is gripped by the onrush of what is probably and may prove to be the greatest global crisis in more than 100 years. Large-scale preparations for conflict have been taking place for several months now, with two diametrically opposed mobilisations escalating over Iraq. Today's Private Members' motion may prove to be academic, with 250,000 US military personnel and 26,000 British troops in place on a global chess board with unlimited potential for disaster. Driven by their fear that global resistance will soon render war impossible, the chicken hawk architects of the war in both Washington and London have massively stepped up their deployment of troops and military equipment to those countries adjacent to Iraq.

  Recently President Bush stated the course of the United States did not depend on the decision of others, including the United Nations, effectively placing himself and the United States outside the pale of the United Nations, whose moral authority he is happy to invoke as other occasions demand. The United States has treated Irish air navigation orders in cavalier fashion, as massive troop and munitions deployments openly flouted the regulations, particularly by transporting munitions of war without Government approval. By allowing through flights and extending the use of our airspace and facilities to the United States and by being tarred with the coalition brush, Ireland is being placed in dire risk of reprisals from misguided terror groups, whose ingenuity and imaginativeness in fomenting chaos and mass murder are legendary. Sellafield immediately comes to mind in this regard.

  The failure of the UN arms inspectors may have unthinkable consequences and they should be given adequate time to complete their work, free from the shadow of the propaganda press. The latter is generating a pervasive climate of fear and predicting imminent biological and chemical warfare attacks by Iraq.

  As a verification and precautionary measure, I advocate the immediate establishment of an Irish arms and munitions inspectorate at Shannon Airport to ensure compliance with air navigation orders. Ireland must use its good offices as a UN Security Council member to build confidence in the negotiation process.

[612]  Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: In the current international crisis the conscience of the nation does not reside in Leinster House. Its conscience is very much in evidence at the peace camp at Shannon Airport and in the daily demonstrations and meetings which are taking place in this city. The conscience of the nation will also be in evidence on the streets of Dublin on Saturday, 15 February, when many thousands will join together in opposition to the threat of war by the United States Administration and the British Government against the peoples of Iraq. The conscience of the nation does not reside in the House, though many Members on these benches are determined in their opposition to the Government's destruction of our neutrality, and it certainly does not reside in the Department of the Taoiseach or the Department of Foreign Affairs. By their actions, the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs have written a new chapter of shame in Irish diplomatic history.

  The Government is systematically abandoning neutrality by stealth. It joined NATO's Partnership for Peace despite promises to the contrary, it has committed troops to the EU rapid reaction force and Deputy Cowen is now arguing for the extension of the Petersberg Tasks beyond humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. The Government refused to seek a legally binding neutrality protocol to the Nice treaty despite the public outcry on not one but two occasions. It set the precedent of ministerial authorisation of war preparations at Shannon Airport in the case of the USA-led war on Afghanistan without the assent of the Dáil and has failed to use its positions on the Security Council and in the EU to avert war on Iraq.

  Listening to the Minister for Foreign Affairs last night was incredible. An instance of particular note was his statement that actions at Shannon Airport which brought attention to the compliance of this Government with US war needs would only invite the attention of potential terrorists. In other words, we should all shut up, ignore it and allow the Government to continue in its actions and complicity with US war intent, otherwise we could very well make Shannon Airport a target. It is not the peace camp campaigners or the Members of this House who would make Shannon Airport a target, it is the actions of this Government in its abrogation of its responsibility to uphold Irish neutrality and ensure the clearly stated intent of the people is upheld.

  The Government has allowed US forces to use Shannon Airport as a pit-stop on their way to their war build-up. It has refused to unequivocally reject participation in war on Iraq. The people are clearly opposed to this war and they value neutrality. The Government would undoubtedly have overwhelming support for an independent foreign policy and a neutrality which is both positive and proactive. It is not too late and I appeal at this eleventh hour to the Government to act in accordance with the wishes of the [613]people. It should restore some sense of credibility with those who elected it and with Irish public opinion.

  Mr. Morgan: What does Irish complicity in this war mean? Are we aware of the costs of war, especially in human, economic and environmental terms? Given the suffering already inflicted on the people of Iraq by the sanctions, what is mass bombing going to bring to the citizens of that state? There has been over a decade of economic sanctions and their effectiveness is to be questioned. It is ironic that Britain and the USA, the two countries most opposed to sanctions against South Africa, were the ones pressing hardest at the outset of this campaign for the imposition of sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions are not effective because they have not been thought through in the same way as those imposed on South Africa. Sanctions eliminated the need for war in South Africa, but the intention has always been war in the case of Iraq. It was always about money and oil.

  This House must clearly say “No” to war for oil and “No” to war for profits, even if those profits are for Irish industry. Although Ireland is not an arms exporting nation, many companies manufacture dual use components which can and probably will be used if this war goes ahead. We must highlight the real intent behind the war. Tony Blair last week justified his intentions by citing the hundreds of millions of pounds his Government was spending to move 25% of its total military personnel to the Gulf.

  This has not only recently become an issue and even before 11 September and the war in Afghanistan, the British Government was spending £23.5 billion annually on defence. That is what is behind current circumstances. It amounts to a very powerful lobby within the British economy. It is an industry which in time of war or peace diverts to armaments scarce resources which could be used to tackle issues such as child labour, illiteracy, global poverty and the massive health problems affecting billions of people throughout the world. It was the British and USA arms industries which supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein and fuelled ten years of war between Iran and Iraq. People remember the name of Oliver North and the vivid pictures of him standing before a House commission attempting to explain what went on and the filth behind the set up.

  In the Bush Administration, 32 presidential appointees have significant ties to the arms industry. That gives us some insight into the backdrop to what is happening. We know what is the position of the Irish people with regard to this matter. They are firmly in favour of neutrality as evidenced in debate on the first referendum on the Nice treaty and in any airing or discussion of the issue we have ever had. Unfortunately, we do not define our neutrality by stating what it is, rather we define it according to what it is not. We should take [614]examples from documents such as the Hague treaty to instance positive elements of neutrality and we should conduct an open and frank debate about this country's desire for a properly neutral position. We should enshrine that position in our Constitution.

  Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kitt): My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has already spoken at length with regard to this motion and I wish to emphasise the Government's concern over the crisis on Iraq. Not the least of these concerns is the continuing suffering of the Iraqi people under the sanctions regime. It is a matter of profound regret for the Government that the people of Iraq continue to suffer considerable hardship as a result of their Government's deliberate and persistent violation of successive United Nations Security Council resolutions aimed at preserving international peace and security.

  Ireland has worked to ensure that United Nations sanctions are administered in such a way as to ensure that the humanitarian and long-term economic interests of the people of Iraq are secured, while also ensuring that the necessary controls are in place to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. During its term on the Security Council, Ireland was active in developing Resolution 1409, adopted in May 2002, which seeks to target sanctions against the Iraqi regime while minimising the impact of those sanctions on the civilian population. In particular, the provisions of Resolution 1409 were intended to ensure that there would be continuing availability of medical supplies for the most vulnerable sectors of the Iraqi population, including mothers and children.

  In addition to the work which it has done at the United Nations, the Government has also sought to assist the vulnerable sectors of Iraq's civilian population. In 2002, Ireland channelled funds through the Irish NGO, Trócaire, for an emergency programme targeting children and mothers in an emergency nutrition intervention. Ireland also provided approximately €467,500 in bilateral humanitarian assistance in 2001-02. The fact remains, however, that the most effective way of easing the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people and avoiding any escalation in the current situation would be for the Iraqi Government to act immediately to meet its obligations under the United Nations Charter by complying fully with the demands placed upon it by the Security Council.

  From the outset, the sanctions regime imposed no restrictions on the importation of humanitarian supplies. With the adoption of the oil for food programme in 1996, Iraq was given a workable mechanism by which it could trade unlimited quantities of oil in exchange for humanitarian goods for its civilian population. The United Nations Secretary General has confirmed on a number of occasions that the improved funding level for the oil for food programme means that [615]the Government of Iraq is in a position to address the nutritional and health needs of the Iraqi people, particularly those of children. The head of the Office of the Iraq Programme, Mr Benon Sevan, has repeatedly advised the Security Council, and visiting members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs last November, of the obstacles which the Iraqi Government has put in the way of the effective operation of the programme. By withholding effective co-operation from the programme, through such means as politically motivated embargoes on oil sales and refusals to prioritise purchases under the programme, the Iraqi Administration has contributed in large part to the shortfalls in the provision of essential supplies to the Iraqi people.

  Two day ago, the United Nations arms inspectors reported to the Security Council on the progress of their inspections. While Dr. Al Baradei was fairly positive and took the view that Iraq does not currently have any nuclear weapons programme, Dr. Blix, head of the main weapons inspection body, was far less positive and raised a number of serious concerns. Dr. Blix made it clear that the immediate, unconditional and active co-operation required by Resolution 1441 had not been forthcoming. There is a series of areas where Iraq's declaration on its weapons is incomplete or where it has failed to produce evidence to support its claims that it has destroyed weapons. So far, Iraq has failed to give a believable account of what it made, what it used and what has become of what it might still hold. It is time it did so. It is not the inspectors' job to search for evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, it is for the Iraqis to prove that they have done what they claim to have done. It is for them to set the record straight once and for all.

  I agree with the suggestion that other countries, which claim to have evidence, should put it forward. All countries who can offer such evidence have a responsibility to do so. I am pleased to note that President Bush has announced that on 5 February, his Secretary of State will present such evidence to the Security Council. We await it with interest.

  Earlier in this debate, Deputy Gregory claimed that Iraq no longer represents a military threat. He is much mistaken. The possibility that any state might possess chemical and biological weapons is a threat to us all and one which must be dealt with. A suspicion to this effect must be laid to rest as speedily as possible. The international community has long forbidden the possession, let alone the use of such weapons. The case is all the more pressing when the country under suspicion is known to have had chemical weapons in the past and actually used them, both against its neighbours and its own citizens. There is every reason to suspect Iraq of continuing possession of such weapons, every reason to fear that it might once again put them to use.

  Ireland very much wants to see a peaceful solution to this crisis. Military action is not a desir[616]able solution, far from it. Force must be used only as a last resort when all other means have been exhausted. Recognising this, Ireland, together with our fellow members of the Security Council, worked hard to ensure the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1441 on 8 November last. The resolution is designed to avert war. It brings the entire issue of the use of military force back within the framework of the United Nations and gives Iraq a final opportunity to demonstrate that it has rid itself of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as it is required to do by successive Security Council resolutions. If Iraq should fail to meet the conditions set by the resolution, the Security Council is to convene immediately to assess any alleged material breach of Iraq's obligations, to consider the situation arising and to decide upon further steps necessary to bring about full compliance with its resolutions.

  Mr. J. Higgins: Does the Minister of State have anything to say about Israel?

  Mr. Kitt: In the months before Resolution 1441 was adopted, there was a widespread expectation of unilateral use of force by the United States. Today, by contrast, the Security Council is dealing with the issue and efforts are being made to find a peaceful outcome. I have never accepted, nor do I now, that war is inevitable.

  Although there is no definitive position of the international community on the arguments which the Unite States and others have advanced that no further resolution is required to mandate the use of force, we consider that there is an overriding political need for the Security Council to determine whether its resolutions have been breached and what measures should be adopted. If the situation arises where military action is initiated against Iraq, either with or without further Council sanction, the Government, as the Minister promised yesterday, will, having reviewed the situation, initiate a debate in this House on the position to be adopted by Ireland.

  If, despite all our efforts, a war cannot be averted, its consequences could be very grave. Apart from the terrible suffering to which the ordinary people of Iraq would be exposed, there would be a serious risk of destabilising an already volatile region. The sense of victimisation felt by many in the Moslem world would be deepened, support for terrorism could grow and economies would suffer. The Government does not wish to see war take place. In every forum available to us, we have spoken out and used our influence to urge the parties to find a peaceful solution and we will continue to pursue this approach.

  The basis for Ireland's approach to this crisis is our long-standing commitment to international peace, justice, security and stability upheld by the rule of law, peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for human rights. These beliefs are also reflected in the concerns about the possibility of war which have been expressed by many people here in Ireland and abroad. I do not see this atti[617]tude as anti-American. The concerns reflect genuinely held beliefs, expressed freely and openly in countries where people have the opportunity to do so.

  Ireland strongly supports the system of collective international security, a system in which we see the United Nations as the keystone. The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In carrying out its duties under this responsibility, the Council is acting on behalf of the entire membership of the United Nations. The system of collective international security can work only when individual countries accept their responsibilities. All states which desire a peaceful international order, ruled by principle rather than by force, have to stand up for the authority of the Security Council. Under Article 25 all members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Council. This is a clear obligation on all states.

  Unfortunately, Iraq has consistently flouted its obligations. Everything in Iraq's record shows that the regime in Baghdad responds only to the threat of military action in the face of further non-compliance. For such a threat to be effective, it must be credible. It is through this perspective that we should consider the build-up of forces which is taking place in the Gulf at present. Kofi Annan distinguished between pressure exercised by the threat of force and the actual use of force. He expressed the view that without that pressure the inspectors would not be back in Iraq today. I hope this credible threat, rather than the use of force, will resolve the conflict.

  We believe that the arms inspectors should be given as much time as is necessary and useful to complete their work. It will be for the Security Council to make a determination as to whether the exercise continues to be worthwhile and what should follow. Iraq must now respond without further delay or excuse and thus put an end to this crisis as well as to the sanctions which have brought so much hardship to its people.

  Ms Harkin: I wish to share my time with Deputies Healy and Twomey, and the final five minutes to Deputy Joe Higgins.

  An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

  Ms Harkin: It would be great if life was simple, if in one corner there were the good guys, with the bad guys in another, like in the cowboy films where the cavalry comes to the rescue and all ends well. In those scenarios there would have been a few dead Indians, but, as Bob Dylan sang, “we have God on our side.” However, life is not like that. It is messy, contradictory and difficult, and everything has a context and a history.

  Saddam Hussein is a callous, brutal dictator. Those who suffer most at his hands are the Iraqi people. However, he did not just emerge from the mist; he is the adopted son of the US, or was until [618]they threw him out of the house. He now bites the hand that supplied the arms in the first place.

  On the other hand, is the US the policeman of the world? Does it take the Yanks to sort things out? Just a few years ago, while we in Europe passed one meaningless resolution after another, thousands of men, women and children were butchered in the very heart of Europe at Srebenica, and we all know how that ended. Why are the Americans talking to the North Koreans while preparing to bomb Saddam? Oil is a large piece of the jigsaw.

  Where in all of this stands Ireland? We have close cultural, family and economic links with the US. There is hardly a family without an uncle, aunt, son or daughter in the US, some of whom may be in the defence forces. For many years, the US military have used Shannon. I listened carefully last night to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. If he speaks the truth, and I have no reason to doubt him, then what is happening in Shannon now is no more than business as usual. Therein lies the problem – this is about the business of neutrality and the business of Shannon. We need to debate it and sort it out, and we need a clear, unequivocal statement from the Government as to what will happen in the event of war.

  There are some in this House who told us just months ago not to trust Berlin; some now tell us not to trust Boston. As a sovereign, independent State, in a world under the threat of global terrorism, we must debate this and find our niche. We must support the decisions of the UN and I support the call by Deputy Connolly for the establishment of an Irish arms and munitions inspectorate. I do not support a unilateral or bilateral approach by the US and the UK. It is within the capabilities of the international community to sort this out, and every effort must be made to avoid war. A recent article suggested that if war breaks out, at least 50,000 people will die. That is the equivalent of every man, woman and child in County Sligo, and a few more besides. I cannot contemplate that.

  The US, with others, invested a great deal of time, energy and commitment to help secure the Good Friday Agreement. As friends, let us try to repay that debt and put all our efforts at EU level and at the UN into a search for solutions without war.

  Mr. Healy: This Private Members' motion condemns the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and its suppression of human rights and national and ethnic rights. I agree with that and want to stress the point. This is a humanitarian motion, not an anti-United States motion. War is ongoing at present, as Mr. Donald Rumsfeld said on 19 January last. There is a state of war with Iraq that has not ended. The cover for that war is supposed to be the use of and access to weapons of mass destruction. Is that the real reason for this war? An American ally, Israel, has 350 nuclear war[619]heads while India and Pakistan are nuclear states. They are all friends and allies of the United States yet we see no action taken against them. The reason for war is hardly because Iraq has breached UN resolutions. Israel, an ally of the United States, has breached 44 UN resolutions in the past yet no action has been taken against it. Instead, there is ongoing support.

  Mr. Rumsfeld told us there is an ongoing war. Unfortunately, this country is facilitating and supporting that war and facilitating the transport of US military planes and land forces through its refuelling of planes at Shannon Airport. This is in breach of the Defence Act 1954 and the Air Navigation Regulations 1973. It is also in breach of Article 5 of the Hague Convention which forbids the movement of troops and convoys over neutral countries. I want to make that point strongly. Ireland is a neutral country and should not be used by the United States or this Government as a supporter in a war which has not been discussed in this House, and which is not supported by this House or the vast majority of the people, as has been shown in various opinion polls over recent years.

  This is a war about the huge reserves of oil that Iraq holds – 11% of total world reserves. Unfortunately, Ireland is being drawn into this by an unthinking and uncaring Government which allows the facilities at Shannon to be used. I support this motion.

  Dr. Twomey: Amnesty International has highlighted human rights abuses in more than 60 countries worldwide. Iraq is just one of these countries and these issues must also be raised in the future. This motion is about gauging political opinion so that the rest of the country can see what this House believes in. This war is about oil because western society, whether in America or Ireland, consumes huge resources that are purchased cheaply from Third World countries. If we were genuinely concerned about these countries, we would promote a more balanced spread of world wealth.

  The Shannon protest would be important if we were discussing what is really meant by saying Ireland is a neutral country. Politicians have not defined for the people what they believe neutrality to be. However, with regard to a world at war with Iraq, the events at Shannon are only a sideshow. They show the concern of a few citizens but much more is happening. Worldwide, organisations such as al-Qaeda have grown out of an anger in poor countries towards wealthy western countries. The West has exploited them for centuries and we are part of this process of exploitation. On the other hand, al-Qaeda aims to make bio-terrorism the Cold War of the 21st century, and smallpox and other bio-chemical weapons have the potential to kill millions. Global terrorism is real and it will affect us, but will a war with Iraq make any difference to a long-term solution?

[620]  The issues of oil, bio-terrorism, Iraq's attitude to the UN and world arms sales are not excuses for going to war but they are issues on which Dáil Éireann – Government and Opposition alike – must have an opinion. There are millions of people suffering under repressive regimes that all western countries, European and American, have chosen to ignore for years. We are not taking the high moral ground on this issue. We bear in mind that the massacres in former Yugoslavia, which prompted NATO to go in, were of Muslims. This does not absolve the United States for bombing Iraq but it does provide a reasoning behind what it has done with regard to Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.

  This motion is not anti-American, nor is it about the role American soldiers play in the Shannon economy. It is about Ireland's role in international diplomacy and promoting a fairness for all people worldwide. Cutting overseas development aid by €34 million says more about our commitment to the international community than any words said in Dáil Éireann.

  Mr. J. Higgins: In wrapping up the debate, I thank my colleagues from the Independent group and Technical Group for their considered speeches in the course of the debate. Last night's speech by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by contrast, was a despicable performance and, if analysed, was a lightly embroidered repetition of the Bush and Blair arguments for an attack on Iraq. The game was given away when there was a point blank refusal by the Government to say that it would break ranks with the warmongers in the case of a unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States. The explanation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of procedures governing the facilities given over to the US military at Shannon was a totally dishonest attempt to cover up the truth.

  Last year over 500 military planes landed at Shannon in building up the US war machine in the Middle East and not a single one had permission to carry weapons or munitions of war in flagrant breach of Government regulations. The Government cravenly and deliberately turned a blind eye to the weapons and munitions that such aeroplanes were, undoubtedly, carrying and which will, undoubtedly, be used in the event of a war to slaughter innocent Iraqi people.

  Mr. Cowen: Untrue.

  Mr. J. Higgins: Only now when its connivance with the US military has been flushed out by the anti-war movement is there a scramble to give some cloak of legality to it. We need a serious, sober and considered debate—

  Mr. Cowen: Hear, hear.

  Mr. J. Higgins: —on the critical issues that a war against Iraq raises about the very future of our planet. Radio Telefís Éireann, our national [621]broadcasting authority, has a crucial role in that regard and I have no doubt that many within it will discharge that role well. However, that belief was not vindicated by the disgraceful pro-war snow job on the Marian Finucane radio programme this morning which lined up a well meaning but hapless peace activist in Shannon against a sneering Sunday Independent journalist, an obscurantist cold warrior and the presenter herself in a disgracefully unbalanced discussion.

  The Governments of the United States and Britain, slavishly echoed by substantial sections of the western and Irish media, are attempting to shroud their imminent war in a grotesque deception that it is about weapons of mass destruction allegedly held in Iraq. They know the bulk of such weapons were destroyed by 1998 and that it is impossible for the Iraqi dictatorship to develop nuclear weapons. The Saddam Hussein dictatorship knows that if it explodes as much as a single hand grenade outside its borders, it will invite an attack by the massively more destructive weapons of the United States, Britain and others.

  The media know that the obscurantist and grotesque relic of Stalinism in North Korea has incomparably more destructive power than the Iraqi dictatorship but an entirely different strategy will be adopted in that case. The monstrous hypocrisy of the Government, as well as Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, must be exposed. They decry the heinous nature of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. So do we. The difference is that we always did.

  It is too bad Fianna Fáil did not realise how [622]heinous a regime the Iraqi dictatorship was in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein's army committed unspeakable atrocities against the Iranians, marching on stomachs filled with Irish beef sent to Saddam Hussein by a Government in which the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, was a senior Minister, which exports were underwritten by him with funds provided by the taxpayer. The US Defence Secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, is also well qualified to speak about Saddam Hussein. He visited him in the mid-1980s in Baghdad to bring the full support of the United States Government for the terrible war against Iran when Iraq was, on a daily basis at that very time, using chemical weapons against the Iranians in total defiance of international conventions. A few weeks ago The Washington Post published a review of thousands of declassified US documents which showed that in the 1980s the United States sent numerous items to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague. What hypocrisy.

  This war is about control of Iraqi oil and to send a signal to the world that the United States is an imperial power and armed collossus that will bestride the world and dictate its terms. Let no one attempt to gainsay this. The motion stands against the rotten dictatorship and war. We stand with the people and the millions of Americans and British who oppose it. On 15 February tens of thousands of people who oppose the Government's policy and the war will join us in the anti-war mass demonstrations to send a signal to the Government that it must stop its connivance.

  Amendment put.

    Ahern, Dermot.

    Ahern, Noel.

    Andrews, Barry.

    Brady, Johnny.

    Brady, Martin.

    Breen, James.

    Brennan, Seamus.

    Browne, John.

    Callanan, Joe.

    Callely, Ivor.

    Carey, Pat.

    Carty, John.

    Cassidy, Donie.

    Collins, Michael.

    Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.

    Coughlan, Mary.

    Cowen, Brian.

    Cregan, John.

    Cullen, Martin.

    de Valera, Síle.

    Dempsey, Noel.

    Dempsey, Tony.

    Dennehy, John.

    Devins, Jimmy.

    Ellis, John.

    Fahey, Frank.

    Finneran, Michael.

    Fitzpatrick, Dermot.

    Fleming, Seán.

    Gallagher, Pat The Cope.

    Glennon, Jim.

    Grealish, Noel.

    Hanafin, Mary.

    Haughey, Seán.

    Hoctor, Máire.

    Jacob, Joe.

    Keaveney, Cecilia.

    Kelleher, Billy.

    Kelly, Peter.

    Killeen, Tony.

    Kirk, Seamus.

    Kitt, Tom.

    Lenihan, Conor.

    McCreevy, Charlie.

    McDaid, James.

    McDowell, Michael.

    McEllistrim, Thomas.

    McGuinness, John.

    Moloney, John.

    Moynihan, Donal.

    Moynihan, Michael.

    Mulcahy, Michael.

    Nolan, M.J.

    Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.

    O'Connor, Charlie.

    O'Dea, Willie.

    O'Donnell, Liz.

    O'Donoghue, John.

    O'Donovan, Denis.

    O'Flynn, Noel.

    O'Keeffe, Ned.

    O'Malley, Tim.[623]

Tá–continued

    Parlon, Tom.

    Power, Peter.

    Power, Seán.

    Ryan, Eoin.

    Sexton, Mae.

    Smith, Brendan.

[624]    Smith, Michael.

    Wallace, Dan.

    Walsh, Joe.

    Wilkinson, Ollie.

    Woods, Michael.

    

Níl

    Allen, Bernard.

    Blaney, Niall.

    Boyle, Dan.

    Breen, Pat.

    Broughan, Thomas P.

    Bruton, Richard.

    Connaughton, Paul.

    Connolly, Paudge.

    Costello, Joe.

    Cowley, Jerry.

    Crawford, Seymour.

    Crowe, Seán.

    Cuffe, Ciarán.

    Deasy, John.

    Deenihan, Jimmy.

    Durkan, Bernard J.

    English, Damien.

    Fox, Mildred.

    Gilmore, Eamon.

    Gogarty, Paul.

    Gormley, John.

    Gregory, Tony.

    Harkin, Marian.

    Hayes, Tom.

    Healy, Seamus.

    Higgins, Joe.

    Kehoe, Paul.

    Kenny, Enda.

    Lynch, Kathleen.

    McGrath, Finian.

    McGrath, Paul.

    McManus, Liz.

    Mitchell, Gay.

    Mitchell, Olivia.

    Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.

    Naughten, Denis.

    Neville, Dan.

    Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.

    Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.

    O'Shea, Brian.

    O'Sullivan, Jan.

    Pattison, Seamus.

    Penrose, Willie.

    Quinn, Ruairi.

    Rabbitte, Pat.

    Ring, Michael.

    Ryan, Eamon.

    Ryan, Seán.

    Sargent, Trevor.

    Shortall, Róisín.

    Stagg, Emmet.

    Stanton, David.

    Twomey, Liam.

    Upton, Mary.

    Wall, Jack.

    

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Gregory and Boyle.

  Amendment declared carried.

  

  Question put: “That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.”

    Ahern, Dermot.

    Ahern, Noel.

    Andrews, Barry.

    Brady, Johnny.

    Brady, Martin.

    Breen, James.

    Brennan, Seamus.

    Browne, John.

    Callanan, Joe.

    Callely, Ivor.

    Carey, Pat.

    Carty, John.

    Cassidy, Donie.

    Collins, Michael.

    Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.

    Coughlan, Mary.

    Cowen, Brian.

    Cregan, John.

    Cullen, Martin.

    de Valera, Síle.

    Dempsey, Noel.

    Dempsey, Tony.

    Dennehy, John.

    Devins, Jimmy.

    Ellis, John.

    Fahey, Frank.

    Finneran, Michael.

    Fitzpatrick, Dermot.

    Fleming, Seán.

    Gallagher, Pat The Cope.

    Glennon, Jim.

    Grealish, Noel.

    Hanafin, Mary.

    Haughey, Seán.

    Hoctor, Máire.

    Jacob, Joe.

    Keaveney, Cecilia.

    Kelleher, Billy.

    Kelly, Peter.

    Killeen, Tony.

    Kirk, Seamus.

    Kitt, Tom.

    Lenihan, Brian.

    Lenihan, Conor.

    McCreevy, Charlie.

    McDaid, James.

    McDowell, Michael.

    McEllistrim, Thomas.

    McGuinness, John.

    Moloney, John.

    Moynihan, Donal.

    Moynihan, Michael.

    Mulcahy, Michael.

    Nolan, M. J.[625]

Tá–continued

    Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.

    O'Connor, Charlie.

    O'Dea, Willie.

    O'Donnell, Liz.

    O'Donoghue, John.

    O'Donovan, Denis.

    O'Flynn, Noel.

    O'Keeffe, Ned.

    O'Malley, Tim.

    Parlon, Tom.

[626]    Power, Peter.

    Power, Seán.

    Ryan, Eoin.

    Sexton, Mae.

    Smith, Brendan.

    Smith, Michael.

    Wallace, Dan.

    Walsh, Joe.

    Wilkinson, Ollie.

    Woods, Michael.

Níl

    Allen, Bernard.

    Blaney, Niall.

    Boyle, Dan.

    Broughan, Thomas P.

    Bruton, Richard.

    Connaughton, Paul.

    Connolly, Paudge.

    Costello, Joe.

    Cowley, Jerry.

    Crawford, Seymour.

    Crowe, Seán.

    Cuffe, Ciarán.

    Deasy, John.

    Deenihan, Jimmy.

    Durkan, Bernard J.

    English, Damien.

    Fox, Mildred.

    Gilmore, Eamon.

    Gogarty, Paul.

    Gormley, John.

    Gregory, Tony.

    Harkin, Marian.

    Hayes, Tom.

    Healy, Seamus.

    Higgins, Joe.

    Kehoe, Paul.

    Kenny, Enda.

    Lynch, Kathleen.

    McGinley, Dinny.

    McGrath, Finian.

    McGrath, Paul.

    McManus, Liz.

    Mitchell, Gay.

    Mitchell, Olivia.

    Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.

    Murphy, Gerard.

    Naughten, Denis.

    Neville, Dan.

    Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.

    Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.

    O'Shea, Brian.

    O'Sullivan, Jan.

    Pattison, Seamus.

    Penrose, Willie.

    Quinn, Ruairi.

    Rabbitte, Pat.

    Ring, Michael.

    Ryan, Eamon.

    Ryan, Seán.

    Sargent, Trevor.

    Shortall, Róisín.

    Stagg, Emmet.

    Stanton, David.

    Twomey, Liam.

    Upton, Mary.

    Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Gregory and Boyle.

  Question declared carried.