David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 41: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's views on whether the use of white phosphorus is the use of a chemical weapon; if the Government will campaign to have white phosphorus listed as such; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39178/05]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer the Deputy to the reply I have just given to the priority question on this issue. There have been several recent media reports expressing concern over the reported use of white phosphorus and suggesting that its use was in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The question of whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon is important since such weapons are regarded as weapons of mass destruction, and under the chemical weapons convention their use is prohibited in all circumstances.

A spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which implements the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, was quoted in some media reports as suggesting that the weapons concerned were not prohibited by the convention. My Department sought clarification direct from the OPCW. The organisation indicated, in response, that white phosphorous is 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.

White phosphorus is regarded as a conventional weapon and 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, CCW, which came into force in 1983. Protocol III of this convention deals directly with prohibitions and restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons.

In the light of the OPCW reasoning that white phosphorus does not fall within the scope of the CWC, a campaign to have it listed under the convention would be extremely unlikely to be successful. That said, all of us would be very concerned about its use except in the most controlled circumstances and subject to the prohibitions and restrictions set out in the CCW convention.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Based on my personal experience and the work I did as a chemical technologist before entering the Dáil, phosphorous is the dirtiest and nastiest chemical one can use in a laboratory. If it gets on one's finger the only remedy is to have the skin surrounding the affected area excised. The Minister referred to the CWC, to which the United States is a signatory. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has said that used as an illumination the phosphorous is not in contravention of that convention. However, the Minister did not indicate other data in the convention to the effect that expert opinion is that if used as a weapon to flush out insurgents, for instance, or people occupying entrenched positions, it is in contravention of the CWC.

The Minister referred earlier to the security analyst, Mr. Tom Clonan, as justification for a previous argument he made. In his article in The Irish Times of 17 November, Mr. Clonan said, as regards American marines, that each of them has the use of high specification goggles in night time warfare and that there is no need for illuminations in battle situations. He says this unusual deployment of illumination rounds for detonation within buildings leaves the US military open to the accusation that white phosphorous was being used as a chemical or terror weapon in Fallujah. I put it to the Minister that there is a major question mark as regards the use of this chemical. It is a weapon I would describe as being "on the edge" of civilised behaviour. The Minister should think again on this issue, and think hard, because there is a contravention of the convention in this case.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not disagree with what the Deputy says. I would not like us to use white phosphorous in any shape or form. I can only speak for Ireland. I am not, in effect, defending the use of white phosphorous. Neither is the Government. Obviously we would be very concerned if it was used in any circumstances where it was in contravention of any of the conventions. However, strictly speaking, as regards the legal definition, according to the body that oversees it, white phosphorous is not regarded as a chemical weapon. Given that it is then regarded as a conventional weapon, does it comply with the CWC in that regard? Again, it is very specific. All of us would be very concerned if it was used in an indiscriminate manner, in ways in which, perhaps, civilians were being put at risk. We would condemn that. Unfortunately the reports I have, emanating from Fallujah, do not inspire confidence in that regard. It is something we must deal with carefully. The international community must exhort those in the international force in Iraq to be extremely careful in its use.

The only way in which we can raise this is through diplomatic channels with the US. We did that immediately the reports emanated as regards its use.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister say what response he got given that Mr. Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the OPCW, which monitors the use of phosphorous as a weapon, said that if it was used as a way of flushing out people from entrenched positions, it would be a weapon of terror. The Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable, said "illumination rounds were used in Fallujah to penetrate and destroy insurgent strongholds and to drive enemy combatants out into the open, where they could be killed with high explosives". Therefore, given the opinions of Mr. Kaiser and the Pentagon spokesman, would the Minister now agree that this was being used as a chemical weapon? What steps does he propose to take with the US Administration in this regard?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Strictly speaking, from a legal viewpoint, it is not defined as a chemical weapon. Again, I am not sure what it was used for at Fallujah. However, it is suggested that it was used to illuminate. I heard what the Deputy said and I am not an expert on this. However, when we raised this with the US Embassy, it was categoric in so far as it could be, that it was not used against the civilian population.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As regards the invitation to the US Ambassador to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, it would be in all our interests to have these issues cleared up and to have a friendly exchange of views. Will the Minister use his good offices, as I am sure he will meet him for Christmas drinks or whatever? Perhaps he could ask him to deal with the committee on these important issues.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not meet him for Christmas drinks. As regards whether he attends a meeting of the committee, that is entirely a matter for himself.