IRAQ ARCHIVE
Reactions and views
what price freedom now?
Iraq timetable
### Iraq War Cost
Tuesday 1st April
Private Members' Motion on Humanitarian Aid
Speech by Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny TD“Fine Gael remains resolutely opposed to this war. The fact that it is going on now is no reason to accept or to excuse it. Far from it. This is a time for conviction. Not convention and acquiescence. The truth is that every effort had not been exhausted to defuse the crisis by peaceful means. Which means, under the rule of international law and order, that this war is wrong. It is unjust and unnecessary.” Fine Gael stance
This evening, I want to unite the Dáil behind the Fine Gael Motion to address the humanitarian crisis facing Iraq. The Iraqi need is great and urgent.
But, in the interest of justice, humanity and democracy, I must address what is fuelling the humanitarian crisis: the war, now in its twelfth day. A war that will affect international politics, and the way the peoples of the world will co-exist for years, if not generations, to come.
Regardless of how long this war will last, two things are required: First, that there must be respect for Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence.
Second, that the right of the Iraqi people to determine their own political future and to control their known natural resources (being primarily oil) remains sacrosanct.
This will only happen if the reconstruction of Iraq is directed by the UN. And, installing the UN, immediately and strategically in the Humanitarian Aid effort, must be step one of that process.
Fine Gael Stance Fine Gael remains resolutely opposed to this war. The fact that it is going on now is no reason to accept or to excuse it. Far from it. This is a time for conviction. Not convention and acquiescence. The truth is that every effort had not been exhausted to defuse the crisis by peaceful means. Which means, under the rule of international law and order, that this war is wrong. It is unjust and unnecessary.
The choice is clear: we either believe in the international rule of law and order - the collective, unifying will of the many, or we believe in the international rule of force - the divisive will of the few. By invading Iraq, the US has fractured the asset of global consensus post 9/11. It has split the UN, NATO and the EU.
Fine Gael believes, firmly, in a unifying, collective will. And the growing civilian cost of this war, a 'version' of which is beamed day and night, into our sitting rooms, our offices, our banks, our hospitals and our public houses, confirms that belief by the hour.
Now, almost two weeks into 'Operation Iraqi Freedom', this Dáil stands divided (as do the UN and the EU).
But as Kofi Annan put it to the UN, we have it within our power to either deepen those divisions or to begin to heal them. Fine Gael believes that the mammoth humanitarian operation which must flow from this war, is the best way to start.
Independent Thinking re America But, in the meantime, there remain outstanding questions for the US. Raising them is neither anti-America nor anti-American. It is independent, centrist, thinking. America was, and is, a real friend to Ireland, in trade, in economics, in family ties and in political support. Our relationship, as I've said before, is warm and historic. And, it is precisely in that context that I ask, on behalf of many people in this country: what next, or more critically, where next? Or, as the Taoiseach himself put it on TV - if the UN is to be sidelined, 'what happens in the next crisis and the one after that?' Yes: Saddam Hussein is a criminal and a brutal dictator. But, we must remember that the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja in 1988, cited every day now as one of the key reasons for this 'war of liberation', didn't result in any international calls for a military strike at the time.
Nor must we forget that the British Government was forced to admit to the Scott Inquiry into Arms for Iraq, that it had continued to grant licences to British companies to export materials that could be used to make biological weapons, until 1996 at least.
US & UN I remain to be convinced by the talk of a new, soon-to-be-published roadmap for a resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. This conflict is, in my view, one of the root causes of the emerging deep antagonism between East and West in recent years.
Past, inner-sanctum comments about the US "subcontracting" its foreign policy "to others" - namely the UN Security Council - were not lost on us. But the US is a past master at using the UN. Over the last 58 years, it has used its veto 73 times, mainly to block initiatives on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. (Robin Cook was one of the first to raise resolutions relating to Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, in rejecting this war.) To note that the ongoing situation in Palestine is stoking Arab anger and inflaming the Arab sense of human, social and political injustice, is to state the blindingly obvious.
But I would warn, once more, that the European and international institutions should, at the behest of this country and others like us, address the implications of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and now Iraq, for opinion and developments in the wider, Arab world. If we don't, our humanitarian programmes could, in time, be extending well beyond the Euphrates and the Tigris.
Humanitarian Meanwhile, Iraq, bleeds. I thank the Government for their support for the motion in the name of Fine Gael on the issue of Humanitarian Aid. I would also like to thank the Labour Party and the independent deputies for their support. I would like to think that Ireland's politicians can speak with one voice on this fundamental issue and that monies that are made available would be additional, 'new' monies and not directed from any funds destined for relief purposes elsewhere. If the government wishes to allocate in excess of the €5 million already pledged, we will accept that.
I call on the Government to do everything it can to make the arrival and distribution of humanitarian aid rapid and dramatic. It must also be planned, targeted and precise. Clearly, there's a desperate need for the kind of expert logistics of the UN in this area. Witness the distribution of food by military personnel, who are neither trained for, nor expert in, this work.
Clearly there is an urgent need for the creation of corridors of access for humanitarian aid, so that it is delivered to those who are identified by the relief agencies as needing it most. There is an equally urgent need that any such food, water and other assistance, be delivered uncontaminated by any military involvement. This is essential.
According to UNICEF at least 5,000 Iraqi children are dying every month, due to sanctions. Add war to that equation and the loss of life among children will surely be immeasurable: literally and metaphorically. The impact of such loss on the Iraqi psyche is unimaginable in its horror. Just as the long-term psycho-social effects of the war on the Iraqi population will be as diverse as they are difficult to quantify. Particularly, when 5% of children displaced by the conflict could be separated from their families. Families like ours.
The Aid agencies believe that acute malnutrition in under fives, will rocket from four to 30%, both as a result of critical food shortages and diarrhoeal disease from drinking contaminated water. Sixty per cent of the Iraqi population is already dependent on Government food subsidies. All the indicators are that once war was waged, the one million children who are already malnourished, were unable to access the Humanitarian Aid they had been availing of.
We heard a doctor from a village near Najaf talk to Sky News about the dire need for basic medical treatment and drugs such as anti-biotics and pain killers.
I want to make it absolutely clear that Humanitarian Aid should in NO WAY be linked to military activity. NO WAY should it become part of the fantastic, propaganda machine. The sight of embedded journalists showing us military trucks, 'liberating' people, with water and sweets, should test the gagging reflex of any decent society.
Humanitarian Aid must be delivered by the aid agencies. And they alone. It must never become a bit player in 'Operation Hearts and Minds'. The Aid Agencies are the people who best know the need. It is they, not the military, who are the humanitarian-relief experts.
Humanitarian Aid is not a privilege. It is the right of the innocent Iraqi people who are suffering so much in a war that is not of their making. We must not let it become a social anaesthetic administered by the military, while they 'clear' the areas they take.
The Irish Government must lead on this issue with other EU Governments. We must show example. We must heal the rift and show strength in Ireland's tradition in being generous, committed and caring to Christian and Muslim alike. We have been a shining example in this area and we must continue to concentrate on it. Minister, I urge you to do this on behalf of us all. While we may have difference in other areas, in this we are united.
Humanitarian Aid, and our collective parliamentary concern, is for the people. People like Dr Tarek Taher, the surgeon on duty at the an-Noor Hospital in Baghad the day another explosion ripped through a city market killing 52 people, children and teenagers among them.
Asked if it would get worse, this kind doctor, this hardened veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, told Lara Marlowe of The Irish Times: 'Yes. The Americans are still far away. When they come nearer. I'm afraid, really afraid - for my own life, for other innocent people. You see, I am one of the innocent people'.
One. of 24 million, who depend, now, for their lives and their future, on our Aid.
Thursday, 20th March 2003
Enda Kenny, on Iraq Motion in Dail Eireann on 20th March 2003
I formally move Amendment Number 8 in the name of the Deputies of the Fine Gael Party.These 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 Dail Eireann here this morning (when war has already begun) is a critical moment in the diplomatic history of our country. It is a moment that demands clarity, determination and courage. But, it demands above all, conviction. It is a moment when 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.
"So, today, the issue is this: "We either believe in the legitimacy and primacy of the UN, 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. "Because yes: 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 that this is also a debate on the fate and future of the United Nations, and therefore, the fate and future of the world, of which Iraq is such a tortured part.
"We may see this war on television, from our safe sittingrooms. But we must not allow distance to confuse us about the country being bombarded: Iraq: "Where almost 50 per cent of the population is under 15 years of age.
"Where infant mortality is ten times the rate it is in the US. Where 70 per cent of the population is dependent on the UN Food-for Oil programme.
"Where hundreds of thousands have been threatened, gassed, mutilated, murdered or 'Disappeared' over the 24-year vile regime of the dictator, Saddam Hussein.
"A regime which is utterly detestable.
"Terrorism and dictatorship must be challenged and eliminated but their elimination does not require that Ireland should act counter to our beliefs.
"Ireland is neutral and non-aligned and has in the past demonstrated that this status can allow us to have considerable influence - as we should have had in relation to this issue. As a small defenceless country Ireland has a better understanding than larger nations of the need to be a part of a world order of security. The best example of that order of security has been the United Nations. Since pre-emptive action undermines the primacy and the legitimacy of the United Nations, Ireland's enlightened self-interest is best expressed by refusal to involve itself through the use of Irish facilities in such pre-emptive invasion. The legitimacy of the UN "A few short months ago, Minister Cowen told the UN General Assembly that the UN was "the centre of our system of collective responsibility. It is a mirror of our determination and our political will." He told them "this is the world body invested by the peoples of the world with unique legitimacy and unique authority."
"Today, that same UN stands emasculated by the military action at this time of the US and Great Britain. When Koffi Annan asserted how "states have a clear responsibility to uphold international law and maintain international order, Minister Cowen went on the UN record 'to endorse him fully'. He said - "States must honour their international obligations. The choice we face is stark. Either we stand by and strengthen the international system and the rule of law or we invite anarchy."
"So, the UN, this mirror of our political will is imperfect. But, through its legitimacy and universality, it has been, undoubtedly, the most successful arbiter of international disputes, the most skilful averter and container of regional and global war, for over half a century.
"A catalyst for action on major global issues, the UN has proved the best-available mechanism to mobilise and sustain international co-operation not just in matters of conflict, but on human rights, the environment and the trafficking of drugs. For 60 years, it has done its best - imperfect though it is - to protect the world's most vulnerable, and therefore silent, people: children, refugees, those who are displaced by war and famine, ethnic minorities, indigenous populations, and of course, people living with a disability. It has done its best - and achieved much - in a world of intensifying social, cultural and political complexity.
"For all of those years, the UN has been the great hope of the small country. The non-aligned country, the neutral state, states like ours. And it is thanks to the UN that a small neutral country like Ireland has had the opportunity to play a key role in the resolution of international conflicts and peacekeeping missions, from the Congo, to Cyprus, to the Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia.
"And now it faces a future of uncertainty where serious doubts are being cast over its primacy and legitimacy. Resolutions "Minister Cowen said in November that Resolution 1441 was about disarmament and not about war. "The Government believes that the integrity of the UN Charter and the prerogatives of the Security Council are fully preserved in terms of this resolution. The Resolution provides for a clear sequential process, whereby inspectors will report back to the Council on Iraq's compliance with its obligations under the Security Council's resolutions. This will then be assessed by the Security Council itself which will decide whether material breach of Iraq's obligations has occurred and what ensuing action is appropriate.
"This was the basis on which the Irish representative on the Security Council supported Resolution 1441, a fact acknowledged in the Government's motion before the House today.
"Just last month, the Taoiseach told RTE - "We want further resolution. Whether legally you need one or you don't, we believe that it is a political imperative in this situation that we have one and that is where we stand.
"This comment belies the Government's decision to provide Irish facilities now. You cannot uphold the primacy and legitimacy of the UN and agree to provide facilities in a war it has not mandated. "The Taoiseach's vague rationale that Shannon was used during the Vietnam War is without merit. Past practice does not decide present action. Nor should we kid ourselves that continued use of Shannon for "peripheral activities" is a continuum without consequence. It is a stand-alone decision with possibly dire consequence. One of those consequences is the possibility of making Shannon and Ireland targets for terrorist counter strikes.
"To say that Ireland would be the only country in the free world not to offer its assistance in this war is also wrong. Countries such as Austria, Switzerland Finland and Sweden are showing their opposition to this war by denying the use of facilities. Moreover, countries such as Germany who allow troops move through their territory are NATO-allied. We have no such alliance. EUROPE "These are tough times for international politics and diplomacy. A divided Europe is paying a heavy price for its failure to tackle security issues head on. Last July, when I attended a meeting of the leaders of the European Peoples' Party I was appalled to find no mention of the Palestinian or Iraqi crises on the agenda for the later Heads of Government meeting in Seville. I raised this matter in the Dail with the Taoiseach to no avail. This type of political and diplomatic vacuum must be addressed if Europe is to provide a coherent and strong voice in world affairs.
"The European voice, far from being powerful, has been fatally incoherent. Even as I speak, France is being pilloried. How have we arrived at a situation where unanimity was achieved last November to a point now where deep rifts have been allowed to open both within the Security Council and in the EU. These divisions, along dimly historic fault lines, as in the case of Britain and France, are of serious concern in the continued development of the European Union. But it must be noted that the US has used its veto 73 times over 58 years, mainly to block initiatives on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. And at this time, Robin Cook's recent observations on resolutions relating to Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, take on a deeper resonance. Indeed, one must consider the implications of this war for opinion and developments in the wider Arab world.
THE MOTION "The Government's motion before the House today fails to address the damage which has been done to the UN by the decision to go to war without a second Resolution. Other than an expression of regret, the Government offers no support to the UN. In contrast, the Fine Gael amendment sets out in clear terms the sequence of events which have led to the current conflict, the need for Ireland to work to restore the authority of the UN and to encourage the provision of humanitarian relief. I would urge the Taoiseach now on behalf of the government to make humanitarian assistance to Iraq a priority issue to raise this at the heads of government meeting tomorrow so that Europe can at least have a coordinated position on this. Any such humanitarian aid made available should be in addition to existing programmes and not diverted from current assistance to Africa or other countries.
"The Fine Gael amendment demonstrates that Resolution 1441 did not authorise war.
"We remind the Government that, as decreed in the U.N. Charter, force should only be used as a last resort when every other possibility has been tried and failed. And the facts are that every other possibility has not been tried and failed.
"The Fine Gael amendment highlights the objective of preserving the primacy and importance of the Security Council.
"These are facts which the Government may not want to be reminded of.
"Because if the Government was truly concerned about the impact on the UN of this war, if the Government truly believed that every other possibility has been tried and failed, if the Government wanted to take action which would show its support for the primacy of the UN, it would make the hard choice.
"Instead, the Government motion expresses regret and then swiftly moves on. Business as usual.
"Many people in this country are angry and disappointed at how marginalised Ireland has been in the Iraq debate. It is not that they expected us to be a major international player. But to be perceived as totally irrelevant, and worst of all, to behave as if we are, that we have nothing to contribute to the international debate shows clearly the absence of real leadership from the Taoiseach and his government. In many ways, this debate is not just about Iraq; it is about leadership, conviction and self-respect.
"The Fine Gael amendment offers the members of this House an opportunity to say that they oppose this war. An opportunity to say that Ireland will not participate in or support in any manner, this war. It also allows for the continuation of humanitarian flights through Shannon airport.
"This debate is wider than the issue of overflight and landing facilities.
"The debate is about our attitude to military action which does not have the benefit of UN support.
"We undermine the UN at our peril. There is a grim historic precedent for such undermining. It was called the League of Nations. And sixty million people died as a result of its emasculation at the hands of nations which looked to immediate self interest rather than international law. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES "Genuine concerns have been expressed in the recent past about the possible consequences of Shannon not being made available to US military planes during the period of the war in the absence of a UN mandate. Ireland has of course a special relationship with the US, a relationship of emotion and politics, of family and economics, of history and hope. It is important at a time of often unjustified anti-Americanism to restate the strength of that relationship.
"It is equally important to register that it is not and never has been a relationship based on economic subservience or international patronage. At no time, up to and including the present day has the US put Ireland under pressure to abandon our non-aligned status or our concept of neutrality as the litmus test of that relationship. These matters are for ourselves for decide, the reduction of that relationship to an implied coercive threat to bring us to our knees in post-war revenge for not allowing the use of Shannon as reported by some elements of the media is profoundly offensive to both partners in an historic trans-Atlantic link.
"To suggest that Ireland's self-interest lies in acquiescing into anything, that any other nation wants of us lest that nation subsequently reduce its economic commitments to this country is the expression of a debased motion of nationhood. It is also a gross underestimation of the American business sector to suggest that they would seek by their business decisions to punish our country for sticking to our principles. We are not the 52nd state of the United States. We are a free nation and as a free nation with high educational standards, a strong work ethic, and a favourable investment climate, we have attracted the best American corporations to set up in those country, Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett Packard, Dell etc. And will continue to do so without tainting our foreign policy and our international stance by a cap tipping fearfulness that expression of difference might spell an end to such investment. We have long appreciated American support in business and trade and also of course in and we look forward to continuing forge new and stronger links in the years ahead in these areas. Indeed I regret the cynical anti- Americanism that has surfaced in this country in the recent past and reject the actions of those who acted illegally to highlight their case and commend the people of Shannon and the Mid-West for their patience and resilience.
"I agree with Senator Edward Kennedy that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. America, is of course, hurting since 11th September. We feel their hurt, but earnestly believe that the carefully-constructed procedures of the UN should have been let take their course, if not days or weeks, then surely months as Dr. Blix indicated. If Dr. Blix and his colleagues had been allowed to complete their work and been able to definitively report compliance, or failure to comply, I have no doubt that the Security Council would have been able to reach a consensus decision.
"While I disagree with the action now being taken by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, it is possible to be anti their action without being anti their countries. It is possible for friends to differ on a fundamental point of principle.
"The United States' nearest neighbours Canada and Mexico with whom they share close economic ties have not joined in the invasion of Iraq.
"Senator Kennedy said recently that America cannot be a bully in the world school yard and expect co-operation, friendship and support from the rest of the world. That is true. But how can a wounded United Nations hope to deal with the triple crisis now facing the world- the war against terrorism, the imminent threat of nuclear weapons held by North Korea and now a war with Iraq. The long term consequences can indeed be catastrophic.
"I recognise Taoiseach, the difficulty that you have faced as head of Government in this matter. I also make the point of the absolute consistency of the Fine Gael position and policy in standing fully with the United Nations as our primary support for international peace and security. I would remind the House that when we held a similar debate in 1991 at the start of the Gulf War my Party voted with the then government in support of that military action which had been approved by the Security Council.
"This point of view is put forward with absolute conviction and whatever decision Dail Eireann makes on the matter, Fine Gael will abide with that decision and work within its parameters.
"The Government must be consistent and streadfast in its views. The Dail must express its opposition to this war and we must not support the war effort.
"To do otherwise would be to betray our commitment to the United Nations. It would betray Ireland's support for an effective international organisation which can ensure justice and order in international life."
Thursday, 20th March 2003
Gay Mitchell TD on Iraq Motion in Dáil Eireann on 20th March 2003
"Truth is usually the first casualty of war, in this war the UN has been the first casualty. I earnestly hope the injury is not fatal."A Ceann Comhairle, at the outset I would like to make a number of points.
* Truth is usually the first casualty of war, the first casualty in this war has been the UN. I earnestly hope the injury is not fatal.
* In September last the UN Security Council unanimously, that is all fifteen-Members, passed Resolution 1441. This clearly demonstrates that agreement can be achieved by the UN Security Council. Working through the Security Council should not be dismissed as a lost cause.
* At that time the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs made it clear that Ireland, then a Member of the Security Council, voted for Resolution 1441 because a second Resolution would be required to authorise attacks on Iraq. In other words 1441 did not give that authorisation.
* On numerous occasions in this House Government spokespersons have listed, as one of their three objectives, preserving the primacy and importance= of the Security Council.
* The Taoiseach told the Dáil on 13th November 2002 that Resolution 1441 was "not a mandate for military action". The Taoiseach also stated, as late as 19th February 2003, that securing a second UN Resolution was "a political imperative".
* The Minister for Foreign Affairs told the Dáil on 11th February last that "force should only be used as a last resort when every other possibility has been tried and failed".
* The UN's own Chief Weapons Inspector, Dr. Hans Blix, has stated that a critical path solution to the Iraqi crisis could be found in a short time using Resolution 1284. In fact, Dr. Blix is due to make a further report this very week.
* In these circumstances, and given that a second Resolution was considered so important that it was pursued at the UN by Britain until Monday last when it was withdrawn, how can war on Iraq be justified at this time? * Of course the US and Britain may achieve their objectives in Iraq, and they may do so quickly. But there are two gambles. One is the gamble that they can, within a reasonably short period, win the war in Iraq. The other gamble is with the future of the UN Security Council itself. Is this something worth risking at this time and in the circumstances as they have evolved and as I have set out? "The UN Charter provides the opportunity for a world in which there will be control, on a collective basis, over aggression and aggressors. The continued pursuit of unarmed neutrality of the kind that Ireland has come to expect is only possible if there is a collective security. This is why I have never understood the attitude of certain Members of this House who are against both unilateral action and multilateral action even if duly authorised by the UN Security Council. They have put themselves in the same camp as those who believe that the UN Security Council is irrelevant and should be ignored. What a terrible price to pay to be popular with those who say they are against war in all circumstances.
"If nations take the view that they are against war in all circumstances then what is the point of the UN, or the UN Security Council? Are we not simply unleashing International powers to act as they wish when they wish? "It is for the UN Security Council under Chapter Vll of its Charter, to decide when war is or is not justified. The UN Security Council is an imperfect body, so are the Irish Government, the Dáil, the Supreme Court, and the European Union institutions. But if we do not respect institutions then there cannot be collective security and the result will be mayhem and anarchy.
"The rise of world tensions and the death of sixty-million people in the second world war, forty-million of them in Europe, followed the failure of the League of Nations. This was succeeded by the UN to prevent a recurrence of such human loss and suffering. A weak League of Nations allowed Japan to invade Manchuria, allowed Italy to invade Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and gave the green light to Hitler who knew that there was no collective Security Organisation to prevent him from pursuing his evil deeds.
"At this time the United Nations Security Council has not approved attacks on Iraq. There is no immediate threat to the security of the region from Iraq, unlike the Kuwait invasion which gave rise to the Gulf War, approval for which was given by this House.
"I have listened to anti-American speeches, dressed-up as constructive comment, and I regret and resent them. I acknowledge the close economic and personal ties between Ireland and the US, and the great contribution made by the United States to International security and the free world. I also note the writings of the former US President, Jimmy Carter, stating that war cannot be justified in the current circumstances. I note the resolution passed by the New York City Council and the views of many responsible US leaders who do not share the views of President Bush at this time. So to be against an attack on Iraq, in these circumstances, is not to be anti-American. My reservation about this war at this time and in this way are based on principle. Speaking in Dáil Eireann on 18th January, 1991, while moving a Motion in support of UN Resolution 678 authorising military action against Iraq, the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, said: 'Ireland has always been one of the Countries most strongly committed to the establishment of the rule of law in International Affairs. It is vital in our view that there be an International Code of Conduct to regulate what would otherwise be the anarchic relations between sovereign States. We have always believed that it is small States and Nations like our own, who have fought to assert their rights and their own identity through history, who particularly need an effective International organisation to provide a structure of justice and order in International life. Without such a structure the bigger and more powerful States will no doubt survive by arming intensively to defend themselves but the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong, as has been the case through much of history'. He went on to quote the address by Eamonn de Valera, the new President of the Council of the League of Nations, speaking in September 1932 when he said: 'The only alternative to competitive armaments is the security for National rights which an uncompromising adherence to the principles of the Covenant will afford. The avoidance of wars and of the burden of preparatory armaments is of such concern to humanity that no State should be permitted to jeopardise the common interest by selfish action contrary to the Covenant, and no State is powerful enough to stand for long against the League if the Governments in the League and their peoples are determined that the Covenant shall be upheld'.
"The then Taoiseach continued: 'This has also been our consistent approach to the United Nations, which is the second effort in this century, after the League crumbled in face of aggression in the 1930's, to build a world of order and justice through an International organisation of sovereign States based on the principle of collective security. What does collective security mean? Quite simply, it means all the Member States of the United Nations pledged to accept the Charter as their code of conduct in International relations and agreed to act collectively, in accordance with the Charter and through the organs it has established, against any of their number who clearly and persistently violate it.
"All members pledged to accept the charter as their code of c= onduct in international relations. The relevant section of the UN Charter is Chapter Vll. This deals with action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.
"Article 39 of the Charter makes it clear that "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or, of act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore International peace and stability.
"Article 40 states: 'In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided-for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures'. Article 41 states: 'The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures'.
"And Article 42 states: 'Should the Security Council consider that measures provided-for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore International peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and any other operations by air, sea or land forces of Members of the United Nations'.
"Clearly, it is the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations, not any members of the Security Council acting on their own authority, which makes this decision under International law.
"And Article 43 states: 1. "All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of International peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining International peace and security.
2. "Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
"The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possib= le on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
"And Article 48 makes it clear: 1. "The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of International peace and security shall be taken by all the members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
2. "Such decisions shall be carried out by the members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate International Agencies of which they are members." Article after article makes it clear that it is for the Security Council to make these decisions.
"What then has happened to the views of the then Taoiseach in 1991 and the views of Eamonn de Valera, as President of the Council of the League in 1932, to bring about such change on the part of the current Taoiseach that he would come in here now and lay before the House, at this eleventh-hour, proposals which run completely counter to those well established principles?
"If Members States act in their own selfish interests, then it cannot be long before the UN goes the way of the League of Nations. Who then will secure the International peace? Have we forgotten that sixty-million people lost their lives throughout the world in World War II because of the failure of collective Security through the League of Nations? It was this very experience that gave rise to the birth of the United Nations.
"Respect for democratic institutions is what Western Leaders say they want of the Iraqi regime. Respect for democratic institutions is vital, which is why the Dáil should have been in session before today and the role of the United Nations should be upheld.
"War in itself cannot always be opposed. There is such a thing as a just war and a war lawfully declared. For example, if Hitler had been stood up to in the early days of his aggression thousands of people would probably have died but because he was not stood up to forty-million people died in Europe, and sixty-million died throughout the world. Decisions of life and death are, at times, the business of democratically elected Governments. These decisions can only be taken subject to the control of democratically created institutions. Chapter seven of the United Nations Charter makes it clear that approval for such war is the agreed role of the United Nations Security Council. The UN Security Council is in need of reform, it has imperfections but it is the only authority in existence that can authorise war. To ignore the UN is to play the game of Saddam Hussein who has no time for due process and the rule of law.
"The European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy is in disarray. EU applicant States have taken sides on the Iraqi question. Relations between the US and some EU States are at an all-time low. NATO is divided. The United Nations itself is in danger of being sidelined and going the way of the League of Nations.
"The League of Nations came into existence on the 10th January, 1920. Headquartered in Geneva it was to settle international disputes and prevent war breaking out again.
"However, the authority of the League of Nations was challenged on a number of occasions. The Japanese invaded Manchuria - part of China, a fellow League of Nations Member in 1931. The League was powerless to act.
"In 1935 Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and the League, which was strongly influenced by the British and French, applied only limited economic sanctions which did not include an embargo on oil supplies to Italy, on which Mussolini's military power relied.
"The League was the creation of US President Woodrow Wilson but the US Congress would not sanction American participation. There are parallels in this, though the US is a full member of the UN and the most influential member of its Security Council, it, and other permanent Security Council members, like to retain for themselves the right to act unilaterally or bilaterally as their interests and judgement require. In other words they are still not fully wed to its objectives. The aims of the League of Nations included dealing with disputes among Nations, preventing war, protecting the independence of Countries and safeguarding their borders, and encouraging the reduction of armaments.
"These are objectives akin to the objectives of the UN. The League failed because major powers could not be compelled to set aside military action in pursuit of their own interests.
"By the time the interests of great Powers were threatened it was too late. Hitler had invaded the Rhineland, annexed Austria, invaded the Sudetenland and later the whole of Czechoslovakia and only when it came to Poland did Britain at last act. France was quickly overpowered.
"The League of Nations never met after December 1939 and was dissolved in 1946. It failed in almost all of its objectives. The UN was its successor and is meant to ensure there is no repeat of such Institutional impotence.
"Respect for the role of institutions such as the United Nations is central to a world at peace. Dr. Hans Blix is due to report again in a matter of days to the United Nations. He made it clear that a conditional roadmap under Resolution 1284 of the UN could be put in place and is an ideal worth pursuing. He has indicated that he would publish such a roadmap. This would require Iraq to meet by a given deadline with specific targets. If these were not met the United Nations could hardly have ignored his findings. 1441 was a unanimous Resolution of all fifteen-Members of the United Security Council in September last. It shows that the UN can and does act. The risk now being taken by the American and British Governments, aided by Spain, Australia and others, may well bring military success. The real problem is, however, that they have not acted with the authority of the UN Security Council. Next time out it might be China, Russia, or some other State which decides to take risks to pursue their own objectives for which they will no doubt feel justified. What happens to International Security then?
"My party, Fine Gael, has set out its policy on this matter both inside and outside this House. I did not attend the anti-war rally in Dublin because, as I made clear at the time, if the UN duly sanctioned war on Iraq I might have had to stand up here and support it. We cannot be against war in every circumstance. If we oppose both UN-sanctioned war and bilateral, or unilateral action, why should the US or UK or anybody else submit themselves to UN authority? "Those Members of this House who told the crowd they would do both are in the same camp as those who ignore UN decisions for their own interests and to pursue their own agenda.
"For years we have been told by certain Members of this House that any action to be supported must have UN sanction. When the UN passed 1441 and looked like it might pass a further Resolution, they changed direction - they wanted a "reformed" UN. Anything to please the crowd. This is untenable. The Dáil, the Government, the Courts, the UN and the EU all have imperfections, as I stated earlier. But the rule of law requires that we respect these imperfect institutions if chaos, mayhem, genocide and wholesale slaughter are not to again become the norm rather than the exception. Fine Gael will not support the action against Iraq in these circumstances. Whatever the potential gain the sacrifice of the rule of law is too great a price."
Seed
Newsvine