Dáil debates

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Ceisteanna - Questions - Priority Questions

Foreign Conflicts

1:45 pm

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on whether Ireland should be more vocal in its condemnation of the use of drones by the United States, which threatens world peace, and is in breach of international law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31018/13]

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland has consistently taken the view that combating terrorism must be conducted with full respect for international law, in particular the law of armed conflict and human rights law. In line with the UN Global Strategy on Counter Terrorism, we believe that effective counter terrorism and the protection and promotion of human rights are mutually reinforcing and not competing goals. Together with our EU partners, we have regular discussions with the US about the legal aspects of combating international terrorism, and the US is well aware of our views on these issues. Unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, commonly referred to as "drones", are used for both civilian and military purposes. Under international law, there is no prohibition on UAVs as such. Their use in armed conflict is subject to international humanitarian law. This sets specific requirements in respect of the use of force in armed conflict, including the principles of necessity, proportionality and distinction. I am deeply concerned about any indiscriminate use of UAVs, which would clearly be contrary to international law, and by instances where innocent civilians have been killed by attacks using UAVs. Outside of an armed conflict situation, international human rights law applies. We and our partners in the EU are strongly opposed to extra-judicial killings. Not only are these contrary to international human rights law, but they undermine the concept of the rule of law, which is a key element in the fight against terrorism. This applies regardless of the means used.

1:55 pm

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the greatest threats to world peace comes from drones. There are over 10,000 of them in service, of which 1,000 are armed, and most of these are American. Drones have killed more non-combatant civilians than were killed in the attacks of 11 September 2001. Their success seems to be measured based on body count. Neither the legality nor the ethics of drone attacks stand up to examination. If this same slaughter were carried out by troops on the ground, the troops involved would face courts-martial. Victims of drone attacks might not even know what they are accused of and would certainly have no chance to contest the charges, let alone be granted a judge and jury.

Following the murder of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut, the US President, Mr. Obama, said these tragedies must end, and to end them America must change. However, what applies to those children murdered by a sick man must also apply to the kids murdered in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia by a calculating and heartless American President. These children are equally deserving of our concern but there will be no presidential tears for them or interviews with their broken-hearted families.

Recently, in his effort to justify the drone war, Mr. Obama’s adviser on counter-terrorism, Bruce Riedel, said one has to mow the lawn all the time as the minute one stops, the grass will grow back. In less than eight years, 2,300 people have been killed by US drone attacks in Pakistan alone, of which 780 were civilians and 175 children.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we have a question, please?

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The credibility of the US President in challenging lawless social violence in US cities is undermined when he has his own personal kill list, in violation of international law, to wipe out enemies elsewhere. Following the Newtown massacre, Mr. Obama asked, in his plea for gun control, if Americans were prepared to say that such violence visited on their children year after year was somehow the price of their freedom. It is a valid question and he should apply it to the violence he is imposing on the children of Pakistan.

Has the Government expressed its opposition to the illegal use of drones to Mr. Obama? Will the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade take up the baton on the international stage to work for a total ban on armed drones, which are causing such devastation, much in the same way as a Government in the past played a significant role in its efforts to ban land mines?

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our view is very clear. Any of the measures used to combat terrorism must comply with international law, particularly the laws on armed conflict and human rights. Our view on this is well-known to the United States, among others.

On the possible banning of drones, I draw the Deputy's attention to a recent statement by the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which stated:

Under international humanitarian law ... drones are not expressly prohibited, nor are they considered to be inherently indiscriminate or perfidious. In this respect, they are no different from weapons launched from manned aircraft such as helicopters or other combat aircraft.
While attention has tended to focus on the use of armed drones for combat operations, there are a considerable number of other military and civilian uses for UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Many military UAVs are not equipped with weapons and are used for reconnaissance purposes. I do not see a prospect of an agreement to ban the use of UAVs in their totality or for specifically military purposes.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister agree with the Red Cross statement on drones? I asked about armed drones rather than drones in general, as many of them are used for surveillance, as I read in The Guardian recently. Many international bodies claim the use of armed drones is illegal. Bombing a family in the middle of the night in Pakistan because it is believed a so-called terrorist is in the same building does not comply with any international law.

Of the 2,500 drone contractors providing multiple products to the US military, one is a company called Green Hills Software, owned by a Dan O'Dowd, who is of Irish descent. Is it possible the State has also purchased products from this company? If so, I would have serious reservations about dealing with a company that was facilitating the murder and slaughter of children in other countries who did not even know the bombs were coming.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross stated was the provision of current humanitarian law, not his opinion.

We have always led on the issue of disarmament. We want to reduce the use of weapons and the killing of people. This approach is very well known across the world. I do not see a prospect of an agreement to ban the use of UAVs. I want to see a reduction in the military use of drones, which is in line with our position in favour of disarmament and the protection of civilians.