Government is impotent in its effort to prevent war

national | miscellaneous | news report Thursday January 30, 2003 15:02 by Manus - LY http://www.labour.ie/stopthewar/

Liz McManus TD

The Labour Party has stated its opposition to any US led war with Iraq, especially when the UN Inspectors have yet to complete their report and without any resolution from the UN Security Council. In such circumstances Labour views a massive conflict with potentially serious loss of life as unwarranted, unjust, and against the wishes of the vast majority of people in Ireland, Europe and throughout the world.

Indeed, the motivation behind any US military action against Iraq without the express consent of the Security Council has to be questioned. The US suffered an unimaginable tragedy when attacked by Osama Bin Laden on 11 September 2001. Then, we were told that regime change in Afghanistan and bringing Bin Laden to justice was to be the ultimate response. Yet, with these twin objectives unfulfilled, the focus of the US administration switched to confronting what they defined as the "axis of evil". This military action, therefore, is on their terms, and theirs alone.

Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly a brutal dictator, as demonstrated in his use of chemical weapons in Halabajah in 1988. He is responsible for some heinous acts against his own people and he has rightly been punished by the international community. Since the 1991 Gulf War, his position has been seriously undermined by policies of containment advanced by European leaders, and by the crippling sanctions imposed by the United States.

However, 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 would it 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 pretext 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 (1999) weapons inspectors were given a mandate to monitor and verify the situation in Iraq with regard to its military capabilities. Despite the wide powers this resolution granted to the inspectors, intense British and American pressure led the Security Council to adopt Resolution 1441 (2002) under which the inspectors currently operate.

The weapons inspectors, however, are reported as saying that their current efforts are being undermined as the US and Britain seem to have already opted for war. Their 27 January 2003 update presented to the UN Security Council advocated giving Iraq one last chance before even considering war, and it is essential that the inspectors be given all the time necessary to fully discharge their mandate.

This request has been backed by UN Secretary General Koffi Annan and the German government who currently hold the presidency of the Security Council.

Indeed, Dr. Blix has welcomed US offers to provide their own intelligence on Iraq's weapons to allow the inspectors complete their task as soon as possible. Dr. Blix recognises that Iraq still has many questions to answer, but it is unlikely that Saddam Hussein will reveal his full military capability with the threat of war prevalent.

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" in the process.

While some of the criticism of the Iraqi authorities made by Dr. Blix 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, in the past, proven to be effective.

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 going on.

However, the extent of the US military build-up gives rise to the suspicion that the US will proceed with military action regardless of the findings of the weapons inspectors and irrespective of whether any further military action might be 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 United Nations. He said the US would "consult", but that if "Saddam Hussein did not disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." Such comments fall just slightly short of declaring a war, as little time is available for assembling this coalition.

Meanwhile, the Irish government has continued to grant facilities at Shannon airport to the United States, as it is entitled to give to any country during peace-time.

The Labour Party sought a full Dail debate on this matter to discuss what facilities have 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 have requested the Taoiseach to outline the steps that have been taken to enforce Section 317 of the Defence Act 1954, which explicitly states that '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 US proceed with military action without a UN mandate, what will the government's position be on the use of Shannon by a country involved in an illegal war? The Taoiseach faces bitter public opposition to the US presence in these circumstances, and should come clean on where precisely the government stands. His comments in the Dail that in such circumstances the government would "review" this policy, is a complete abdication of responsibility. The Irish people are extremely concerned at what precisely is going on at Shannon, and what our part in the military build-up actually is. The Taoiseach has continually dodged these questions. He clearly has no answer, nor is prepared to confront the reality of the situation.

Thus far, Ireland's role has been one of silent spectator as the we drift towards war. There is much more that could and should be done to avert a war and this country should be mobilising international support for efforts to find a peaceful solution to this crisis. My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, has just returned from Iraq where he has sought to listen and understand the situation in the Gulf. I have seen no such effort by the Taoiseach or senior members of the government to engage in this manner.

The Irish government's silence on the threat of war and the use of Shannon by the US military is in stark contrast to pronouncements from the German Chancellor Schroeder, and French President Chirac. Despite being prominent and influential members of NATO, they have stated that they will do all they can to avert war.

The Irish government is committed constitutionally to military neutrality, yet has still to make a clear and unambiguous statement on the matter. They should be doing all in their power politically and diplomatically to exert pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with all relevant UN Resolutions. They should implement some means of inspecting and verifying the US aircraft at Shannon rather than passively hide behind muddled statements from cabinet ministers who seem totally confused as to what is happening in Shannon, or what the government position is.

Moreover, they should stop being mere patsies to the United States and begin to join with all those other countries who are trying to do their very best to prevent an illegitimate war, rather than act as conduits for a devastating conflict.