Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

I sense a palpable, controlled emotion in this debate and I sense the very same emotion among the general public whenever this issue is discussed. It seems as if we are torn between common humanity and what might be perceived as economic and political expediency. It has been said here many times that being anti-war does not mean being anti-American. Those who equate both things are doing a terrible disservice to what is a very serious debate. In fact, they could be doing a terrible disservice to the general good in the long run.

I am anti-war but pro-America, as many others would be. I have a greater spiritual affinity with America than I would have with many parts of Europe, which is understandable given the fact that there are 40 million people of Irish extraction in America. When we talk about America we are talking about the Irish community there also.

We should be able to debate this issue not in a deliberately confused way but on a humanitarian and moral basis. One of the most striking images I saw during the debate on Iraq was the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, when he was in another part of the world, far removed from Iraq. He spoke then about the imminent danger of hundreds of thousands of people dying while other countries prepared for war. This is a vital message which should form part of the debate. Those hundreds of thousands are entitled to human rights in the same way as America would suggest that their invasion of Iraq is about human rights. The difference is that we could do something about the human rights of those Africans with the money we could save by avoiding a hostile situation such as the one that is now developing. We are talking about the expenditure of billions of dollars. If we want to talk about reality, the human rights issue must be put into context.