Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about the current Libyan crisis. Libya has been noted in the international media for a considerable time, ever since Colonel Gadaffi took control more than four decades ago. It was one of the Arab states that appeared regularly in the headlines, most of the time for the wrong reasons. There was a certain amount of terrorism and the regime was never entirely benign given that the Lockerbie disaster in which more than 270 people died was traced back to Tripoli. Very large quantities of arms were imported into this country that undoubtedly exacerbated the conflict in Northern Ireland for a considerable period. However, it was not until recent times that Colonel Gadaffi came in from the cold, to a certain extent, and was again welcomed, particularly in the West. No doubt that had a great deal to do with the oil reserves in Libya but the colonel, too, appeared to want to plot a somewhat less belligerent and more benign political operation than before.

However, the Arab world has never been noted for human rights or democracy, as we in the West would see them. It was surprising, therefore, to see, all of a sudden, an Arab spring sprout up along the perimeter of the Mediterranean, in Tunisia in particular, and in Egypt and Morocco. Even more surprising, the response by the authorities in those countries was relatively benign. They acceded to a considerable degree of democracy and acknowledged the demands of the popular movements that had begun. In other countries the response has not been as benign and there is belligerence. However, the only country that has responded in a totally belligerent and aggressive fashion is Libya. As dictator in charge, Colonel Gadaffi declared war on his own people and engaged in direct violent conflict to resolve the dispute across Libya, from Tripoli to Misrata, Benghazi and other cities.

From that point of view it is important that the international community stands up and says this violent conflict cannot be permitted under international law. It was right, therefore, for the United Nations to intervene and pass two resolutions, the more comprehensive being the one the House is discussing, Resolution 1973, which was passed on St. Patrick's Day. It provided a comprehensive approach to dealing with the problem. It was unusual that a United Nations resolution should be so comprehensive and specific in regard to the areas to which it was to apply. It sought a very broad mandate and, most important, at the same time it specifically acknowledged the condemnation by the League of Arab Nations, the African Union and the secretary general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and the breach by the Libyan Government of international humanitarian law, as seen by the Arab world. Only then is set out the action allowed under the new mandate, namely, the protection of civilians - which is the most important point - the enforcement of an arms embargo, the establishment of a no-fly zone and the freeze on assets belonging to the Libyan authorities. These are all very desirable in terms of the dealing by an outside body with matters which are a threat to civilian lives.

What was extremely important was the appointment of a panel of eight experts to monitor the implementation of this resolution, to provide an interim report within three months and a final report within 30 days of the ending of the mandate. All of us know too well what can happen when a resolution of this nature is abused. We have seen what happened in North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. One hopes the international western community, in particular, the United States, has learned lessons from those situations. It is unfortunate that it is the United States which is now leading the international force. It appears to be more than willing to abandon that leadership. I believe it should be ended as quickly as possible. No country other than Israel is so provocative to the Arab world. It is extremely important the United States is not seen to be to the forefront because its legacy in conflict resolution has not been a good one in all the parts of the world in which it has been engaged. That is one concern I would have. Although NATO is the preferred body, France is the country which has taken the initiative on the ground. It is difficult to see how any Western body leading a military force on an Arab country can be acceptable for any length of time. We must look to the league of Arab states to take over the role from now on. It has already expressed some concerns about the manner in which the resolution has been implemented.

Ireland's perspective is that of a country not engaged in any conflict in an aggressive fashion, but rather engaged with conflict resolution. It behoves us to point out very strongly the legacy of history and the dangers of getting embroiled in the Arab world. Many of the Arab states have already accepted the popular will of the people in their countries, particularly in Tunisia and Europe, and there is much on which to be built. The United Nations should go forward strongly to ensure that leadership is returned to the Arab states, especially as the military force in Libya, including its warplanes and tanks, has been blunted successfully.

Ireland has given €650,000 as humanitarian aid, which is very welcome. I am sure doctors and nurses will also be available to help out with any requests made; we should make this clear as a country which is to the forefront in building a new type of European Union approach in dealing with these matters. We should not engage in an aggressive fashion but look to defusing or resolving conflict. From that perspective, Ireland and other neutral countries in the European Union should take the initiative to show the way forward and avoid the greatest threat of all, which is the perception that this could in any way be interpreted as a crusade by the West to impose its authority and principles on Arab states. That is a dangerous prospect.

The United Nations resolution is proper but it must be monitored very carefully. We should disengage as quickly as possible and there should be no threat whatever of regime change being imposed by the coalition of forces involved. In this country we should lead the way to ensure we move to conflict resolution and the humanitarian stage of the action.

See this speech in context