Dáil debates
Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Priority Questions.
Conventional Weapons.
1:00 pm
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Question 39: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the basis used for his expression of concern to the US Embassy at the use of white phosphorus in Iraq; the adequacy of the response which he received on foot of this communication; the position on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39341/05]
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My question did not confine itself to the convention banning the use of chemical weapons. White phosphorous is an incendiary weapon. As the Minister pointed out, under Article 2 of Protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons it is specifically banned in areas where there are civilians. The basis for my tabling this question was the suggestion in the first instance that it had been used simply for illumination and then that it had been used against military combatants. In neither of those early statements was reference made to the fact that it had been used adjacent to civilians.
Frankly, it is extremely clear that it is not correct to say that white phosphorous never falls within the Chemical Weapons Convention. By definition, if white phosphorous is used against civilians or close to them, it falls within the convention's ambit. In other words, it depends on the manner of its use. Regarding how it was used, we got a straightforward denial followed by a qualified statement that it had been used for illumination. Then came a suggestion that it had been used for military purposes, and we had a string of denials that it had been used in Falluja, a town of 300,000 people where no effort had been made to ensure that the civilian population would not be affected. That is the reason for my question. It is incredible to think that white phosphorous, which burns on a person's skin and continues to burn, and which can be released into wounds and so forth, should have been used in such conditions in a civilian area.
If that is the kind of statement that we get on white phosphorous in Iraq, how can the Minister unconditionally accept such assurances as he receives on other matters?
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We raised with the OPCW the definition of white phosphorous and whether it was a chemical weapon. It confirmed that it was not since it did not fall within that convention's ambit. However, at the same time, I fully empathise with the Deputy's view regarding the use of such weapons in circumstances where civilians are involved. We raised this issue with the US Embassy. There were media reports on the issue and the embassy confirmed that, while it had been used, that was against enemy combatants. They said that any suggestion that it had been used against civilians was completely wrong.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Minister believe them?
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I go on to say that they stated that forces in Iraq went to extreme lengths to ensure that everything possible was done to keep civilians out of harm's way. Regarding Falluja, I believe that there were in the region of 300,000 there.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
After appeals to the civilian population to leave the area, approximately 30,000 people remained. It raises concerns regarding this issue, but when we first became aware of the use of phosphorous and the way in which it was used, we raised those issues with the US Embassy.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I appreciate the Minister raising it with the United States embassy but I also asked about the degree to which he is satisfied with the response and where we go from here on this issue. Apart from the convention banning the use of chemical weapons, there are clear breaches of international law, including breaches of the protocol to the Geneva Convention regarding the protection of civilians. Will the Department follow up that matter? In regard to Protocol III of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Weapons, which is a more general convention, it is frankly unacceptable that one can say there were 300,000 civilians, we asked them to leave, 30,000 remained and therefore we broke international law straightforwardly in using these horrific weapons against a population that was overwhelmingly civilian. The final part of my question concerned the satisfaction or otherwise of the Minister, his Department and the Government with the reply they got and whether they intend, for example, to pursue the issue of other clear breaches of international law, specifically the Geneva Convention and the protection of civilians.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are going back over old ground in regard to the assurances about Shannon. We accept the same assurances that the Deputy accepted when he was a member of a Government——
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——in respect of the use of Shannon. That has been the case for 50 years.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, it is not the case.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Regarding the use of Shannon and infringement of any——
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Not in relation to leaks by the CIA about extraordinary rendition.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——international human rights, the Deputy was a member of a Government that accepted that.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, I was, and if I was a member of a Government I would have inspections.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am glad the Deputy clarified that.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am clarifying it and I am also clarifying the issue regarding white phosphorous. I believe in the application of international law.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If the Deputy asks a question he should let me finish. I will not take double standards from the likes of Deputy Higgins, depending on the side of the House he sits on.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They are not double standards. I assure the Minister that if he makes an allegation it will be replied to.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A Government in which I was or would be a member would not support extraordinary rendition in the way the Minister is doing.
Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister to conclude.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have made it clear that——
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If the plane begins and ends its journey there and the Minister knows that, what happens in between is his responsibility.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Higgins, we have made it clear that we condemn extraordinary rendition and we will not allow this State to be party to it.
Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have said that and we have also said that we are against the use of chemical weapons in conflicts such as that in Iraq. Regarding the question the Deputy asked, we have raised the issue of the use of white phosphorous in the only way we can — with the United States through our diplomatic channels, and they have said clearly that they have not used white phosphorous specifically against civilians.
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister can raise the issue under a breach of the Geneva Convention.