Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

The Government strongly opposes any use of chemical weapons, which is of course contrary to international law. We likewise strongly oppose the use of any conventional weapons in a manner contrary to international law.

My concern on the issue was aroused by several media reports last month which alleged that weapons banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention, CWC, had been used by US forces in Iraq in the attack on Falluja in November 2004, and that it had led to many civilian casualties. At the same time, it was reported that the US authorities had admitted that information previously given to journalists regarding the use of white phosphorus had not been accurate. It was against that background that I asked my Department to seek clarification from the US Embassy in Dublin to ascertain the actual position.

The embassy confirmed that US forces had used white phosphorus munitions in Iraq, both to create smokescreens and as incendiary weapons against defended positions. It said that the US characterises white phosphorus as a conventional munition and a standard part of its arsenal.

A spokesperson for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, which implements the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, was quoted in media reports as suggesting that the weapons concerned were not prohibited by the convention. The Government then sought clarification direct from the OPCW. The response was that white phosphorus is regarded as an incendiary weapon and that since incendiary weapons achieve their intended effect through the release of thermal energy, or heat, they would not fall within the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention. While that clarifies the international legal position on the status of white phosphorus, it does not, of course, alleviate concerns about the use of conventional munitions, including white phosphorus, in areas where civilians are present.

As a conventional weapon, white phosphorus falls under the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, more commonly known as the CCW Convention, which came into force in 1983. Protocol III of that convention deals directly with prohibitions and restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons.

That protocol prohibits in all circumstances making the civilian population the object of attack by incendiary weapons. It also prohibits making any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of an attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

With regard to the delivery of such weapons by ground forces, there is a requirement that such a military objective be clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and that all feasible precautions be taken to avoid or minimise the incidental loss of civilian life.

While the US has signed the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, it is not party to Protocol III of the convention. However, the US Embassy, in confirming that white phosphorous was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants, has stated that suggestions that civilians have been targeted with these weapons are wrong. The embassy has also stated that US forces in Iraq go to extreme lengths to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure that civilians are not put in harm's way during their operations.

The Government has clearly and consistently expressed the view, before, during and after the events in Falluja, that every possible effort must be made to keep to a minimum the use of force in built-up areas, and to avoid civilian casualties. I believe all of us in the House are deeply concerned about the events there. The Government of Iraq has announced that it is sending a team to Falluja to investigate the circumstances in which incendiaries were used in that battle. We look forward to the outcome of that investigation.

See this speech in context