John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

In speaking this evening on the broad issue of the current situation in the Middle East, I would like to address the situations in Iraq and in Israel and Palestine. In my opinion, both situations warrant a debate in their own right.

There have been many changes in Iraq over the past few months and we can look at these in terms of the glass being half full or half empty. Treatment of prisoners is a serious issue but more importantly it is a sign of the attitude of the US towards Iraqis. Simply put, is it a case of "do as I say, not as I do"? The pictures of prisoner abuses are damning and bring shame on the US Administration, but we must await a reasoned response. It is difficult to see how there can be a reasoned response but natural justice states we afford the right to response before we pass final judgment. War by its nature records outrages and bad events will occur. The US will be more closely judged on how it deals with these events than the events themselves. The international community will not accept junior ranking scapegoats.

Bad soldiers do not reflect the ethos of a professional army. Such soldiers have to accept responsibility for their own actions. Obeying an unlawful order is not a defence to a charge of a war crime. In my opinion, the perpetrators of these crimes fall into one of three categories. They are either rogue elements, covert operations by a combination of military and civilian personnel or political directives. The chain of command has to be clearly identified and those responsible have to be held accountable and prosecuted regardless of how high it goes, even if it is to the heart of the Bush Administration. Final judgment will be measured on who is held accountable.

From a military aspect, all professional soldiers are trained in all aspects of the Geneva Convention, in particular, Article 144 and how it is applied to POWs, the civilian population, the wounded and the sick. The failure of the US to sign up to the International Criminal Court is a weakness in its foreign policy and leads one to suspect that the Americans have different rules for themselves.

There is a weakness in not providing an international forum to debate this issue. The obvious forum is the UN, but due to the power of veto within the UN system, this forum is flawed. I welcome the draft resolution placed before the United Nations but have some reservations about the US interpretation of its future role. It will have to work in conjunction with the civilian authority and this plan will fail if it continues to operate under independent authority. The British Government seems to be adopting a more conciliatory approach on policing and future operations in accepting the primacy of the Iraqi provisional Government. I hope negotiations will lead to the adoption of a workable resolution that can win the support of the international community. Recriminations serve no purpose. The international community has to come together to ensure the future of the Iraqi state and its people.

I believe President Bush's visit to Ireland should go ahead. We will meet him in our capacity as President of the EU, representing 500 million people, and we have to accept the responsibility that comes with that office. Having said that, we should avail of the opportunity to tell the president of our concern over prisoner abuse and that future US operations would go ahead only with the provisional Iraqi Government's approval.

Confidence among Iraqis in international assistance can only be built by co-operation and not domination. Much has been achieved in this regard. There has been a national distribution of over 12,000 tonnes of medicine and supplies and all 240 hospitals have reopened. Health spending is 26 times greater than under the previous regime and child immunisation rates have increased by 25%. The pre-war potable water supply of 12.9 million litres has been doubled. Tens of thousands of Marsh Arabs have now returned to their ancestral home. All of Iraq's universities have been refurbished. School attendance is up 10% on a year ago. The number of departures of daily commercial aircraft is 100 times higher than before the war. Many of the 4.5 million Iraqi exiles have returned and are setting up major business enterprises. The country has now directly elected new town councils that cover 90% of the population. The World Bank estimates that if the unrest can be quelled, Iraq's per capita income will rise by 33% this year and gross domestic product by 60%. These are real achievements by any measure. If such calm is to become widespread, all available assistance must be given to the new Iraqi Government between 30 June 2004 and the general election in January 2005.

Regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine, I believe in the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. I believe in the state of Palestine and also in the state of Israel. I condemn all acts of terrorism, be they ideological or state-sponsored. The difference between a state and a group of fundamentalists is that a state has to work to a higher and more principled standard. We have to be accountable and responsible for our actions. It is easy for us to focus on prisoner abuse in Iraq, but we should not lose sight of the abuse of the Palestinian people, whether they are prisoners or the civilian population. We should not lose sight of the human rights abuses that have taken place in that country. Senator Norris spoke accurately of certain abuses. I personally witnessed Palestinian bodies laid at border crossings to terrorise the Palestinian people crossing the border and to warn them what might happen to them.

As far as the international community is concerned, Israel seems to work to a lower standard. We all acknowledge and condemn the atrocities against the Jewish people, and some more than others must hang their heads in shame for standing idly by, but that does not give us the right to allow Israel to operate to a lower standard. Both sides blame the other for each outbreak of bloodshed. Palestinian suicide bombers have killed and wounded scores of innocent people and the Israelis are clamping down on the Palestinians, launching assaults against what they believe are terrorist cells and claiming innocent lives in the process. Living conditions in the Palestinian territories are atrocious. Israeli settlers on Palestinian land now number more than 250,000. The construction of a security fence, which is more a wall isolating Palestinians, has torn the US roadmap for peace into shreds.

Edmund Burke once said, "Never despair, but if you do, work in despair". That was never more appropriate than in this case. Evidence would suggest that some members of the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinians generally, would accept the existence of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. We often see spokespersons for this point of view in the media whenever Israel commits an atrocity. Their argument is that they are reasonable people and if Israel would only leave them alone, they could all live in peace side by side. Many of those spokespersons are honest in their views. They genuinely believe they can live in peace with Israelis but while they are probably in the majority, a significant minority will never accept that solution.

Whether influenced by years of Israeli aggression or believing, as many did in 1947, that a Jewish state should never exist in Palestine, a sizeable minority would welcome the extinction of Israel. A majority of that sizeable minority would never do anything overt to overthrow Israel but their tacit support gives succour to those militants who are willing to take more active measures. If those dispossessed of their land within the pre-1967 borders of Israel were allowed to return, perhaps some would change their opinions, although the militants will never change.

As with Palestinian opinion, Israeli opinion is divided and falls within two blocs. Those of a Labour persuasion would probably welcome an agreement provided Israel's safety within its pre-1967 borders could be guaranteed, while there are those who would broadly support it. Likud will never accept the abandonment of the West Bank. All this may be academic as it is unlikely Israelis will be granted safety within their borders. Taking as a premise that safety will be granted, however, how do we persuade the Likud supporters to relinquish the West Bank?

There is no doubt that the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs international approval. The problem that arises concerns who will be the honest broker. It cannot be the US, given its influence, and Europe is viewed as being pro-Arab. We have to find common ground and it is only when the international community comes together and moves forward that we can hope there will be a successful resolution of this conflict.