Seanad debates

Wednesday, 26 May 2004

Middle East Conflict: Statements.

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Paul BradfordPaul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State. I hope this will be the first of a number of debates on this broad issue. The matters raised in the Minister's opening contribution are profoundly important to the European Union and to this country. The matter needs regular airing among the Members of the Seanad. Since we last debated this topic, the situation in the entire Middle East and not just in Iraq has become profoundly more dangerous and serious not only for the unfortunate people of the region, but also for stability and order throughout the world. There is a strong onus on us in this House, the Government and the European Union to play a leading role in trying to bring balance and some degree of harmony to the region.

In our earlier debates we spoke about the role being assumed by the United States as some type of world policeman. That role has not worked. We can now see the job of international policing is one for the United Nations and cannot be done by one country alone. The European Union must now take the lead in this debate. We in the European Union and in this country can bring the balanced, fair and reasoned perspective that is required in this ever increasing gulf between, on the one hand, the United States and, on the other, the various governments of the Middle East. The European Union has a crucial role to play.

When we debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict some 12 or 18 months ago, we had high hopes for the roadmap process. We recognised it was a difficult route and there would be many difficult twists and turns on the road. Unfortunately, the type of progress for which we had hoped simply has not happened. I appreciate that international focus has been on Iraq rather than the broader Middle Eastern problem. Europe must play a leading role in trying to return political focus to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

It is possible to admit without fear of contradiction that the United States has never been neutral in regard to Israel and has been unable to play the role of referee. The political influence the state of Israel can bring to bear on the United States is of such significance that the United States alone cannot play the role of referee in the Middle East. There is a huge role for us and a huge opportunity not just for this country, but also for the European Union to take a much more serious hands-on approach to the issue.

In so far as we can, we must return the debate to the roadmap. We all recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist. However, we must equally recognise the right of the Palestinian people to their own state with defined borders so that its people can live not behind a wall of division, which is being built at present, but behind a reasonable cordon of peace and security.

It is a matter of great concern to see the building of the security wall by the state of Israel. In 1989, the people of Eastern Europe brought an end to the Cold War and its physical manifestation when the Berlin Wall was knocked down. We thought we had seen the last of such crude devices of division. However, this security wall is a new Berlin Wall with all the negative influences that it will bring to bear. We have seen the cost of walls across the centre of Europe. We saw the failed policy of plantation in this country and we must recognise that this security wall represents almost an Israeli version of an Ulster plantation. It cannot and will not work. We must lead the way in arguing for the end of that type of politics.

This debate on the Palestinian and Israeli situation requires much more time than I have available to me. I ask the Minister of State to ensure the European Union gives a new focus to this issue and goes back to what we thought was the starting point last year, namely, the roadmap, and tries to work towards a solution in that context.

While perhaps the images we have seen from Iraq in recent weeks and months have not been surprising, they are truly depressing and absolutely appalling. The number of troops and civilians being killed is rising on a daily basis and the bloodshed at the wedding party last week was yet another of the many low points that have been inflicted on the people of Iraq in recent times. On the other side of the equation, we saw the Internet pictures of the barbaric beheading of the American citizen, which shows how depraved the whole situation has become. Our political focus must be on trying to assist in bringing some order and peace to where there is nothing but chaos and disorder at present.

The conflict in Iraq is an appalling tragedy for the people of Iraq and, from a political perspective, it has very seriously damaged the international standing of the United States and, perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, the United Kingdom. Above all, it has harmed the status of the United Nations, which has been seen as almost powerless to intervene. We must ask ourselves where we go from here and what we can learn.

In the debates we had last year the House was unanimous in stating that moving away from the path of the United Nations would be a tragic route, as it has proven. My party, along with all parties in this House, strongly argued last year for the need for the United Nations to have a primary role and that unilateral action being taken outside the ambit of the United Nations was a very dangerous move. Sadly, that has proven to be the case. We in Fine Gael did not state we were opposed in all circumstances to military action in Iraq. However, we constantly stated that only the authority of the United Nations could bring about the circumstances where such action could take place.

Fine Gael continues to maintain the stance it articulated during last year's debate. Unilateral action against the state and people of Iraq is not acceptable. Any action should have multilateral support and be the subject of UN Security Council authorisation. We spoke of the weapons inspectorate and debated the issue of weapons of mass destruction the existence of which was, according to the USA and British Governments, the primary motivation for the intervention in Iraq. Many of my colleagues voiced the opinion that those weapons would not be found as they did not exist. Nothing which has happened to date suggests this argument was incorrect. It is now most unlikely that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. Perhaps they never existed. I have had a personal difficulty during the course of this conflict with the fact that the premise for invading Iraq was founded on arguments which did not stand up.

We all concede that there was an absolute necessity to help the people of Iraq to change the regime of Saddam Hussein. There was unanimous international backing for any reasonable measures which would have brought about his removal. Such measures should properly have been the responsibility of the United Nations rather than an individual state. It is deeply disappointing that in bringing about the removal of Saddam Hussein and creating circumstances in which the Iraqi people may be able to carve out a future for themselves, the result has been daily chaos, confusion, murder, maiming and killing.

We must ask where we should go from here. I agree with the Minister of State about the absolute need for progress in returning authority to the people of Iraq. Only the people of Iraq can decide their future. It is essential that the deadline set for the creation of an interim administration is met. By midsummer, the people of Iraq must be playing a leading political role in their own affairs. It is essential that the deadline for full, direct elections is written in stone and met in January 2005. Over the past few days, we have seen again an apparent division between the pronouncements of Prime Minister Blair and Secretary of State Powell. We must demand in this House that political authority is vested in the people of Iraq at the earliest possible stage.

I record my absolute distaste at the images we have been seeing and the stories we have been hearing of prisoner abuse in Iraq. It is not good enough to say that what we are hearing and seeing is minuscule by comparison with the activities of Saddam Hussein's regime. That is no excuse. If the international community, the United Nations and the rule of law are to mean anything prisoners, be they in Iraq or elsewhere, must be treated with dignity and respect. The United States of America and Britain are letting themselves down by permitting the ill treatment of prisoners.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.