John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister and his officials. In comparison to three or six months ago, Iraq has drifted out of the headlines. Much of the news reporting now is of daily death tolls — 30 people were reported killed on Monday and 35 on Tuesday of this week. This is reminiscent of newscasts about Northern Ireland in the past. I welcome this discussion as an effort to ensure the same numbness does not develop towards casualties in Iraq as did towards those in Ireland.

A brief review of past news reports can reveal much about the current situation in Iraq. In May of 2003 and 2004, various newspaper headlines read: "Mass grave found near Baghdad — Could hold the remains of 10,000"; "Foreign Secretary concedes hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction might never be found in Iraq"; "Military police question soldiers about photographs of alleged 'torture' of Iraqi prisoners of war"; and "America and Britain layout blueprint for post-war Iraq in a draft resolution to UN Security Council". The issues at the centre of these headlines are also at the centre of our statements today, namely, the atrocities carried out under Saddam Hussein's regime, the doubt about the justification for war and divisions at the United Nations, the abuse of prisoners in military prisons and planning for post-war Iraq. I wish to deal with each of these briefly in turn.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who brought death and misery to thousands of people in Iraq. The world is better for the demise of his regime. Whatever about weapons of mass destruction, the evidence of his ruthlessness is available for all to behold. No dodgy dossier is needed to prove Saddam's sadism.

To try to conciliate or bribe a potential aggressor by making concessions, frequently with implication of sacrifice of principles is something of which Europe has recent and painful memories. It is known as appeasement and it ended in disaster. Whatever the differing views in this House, I suspect none of us wishes we had pursued a course of appeasement rather than the one that has led us to where we are today.

On the question of the justifications for war and division at the United Nations, I will make the following points. On 26 May 2004 we had a debate on the situation in the Middle East. When I spoke that day I recounted the words of Edmund Burke: "Never despair, but if you do, work in despair". The experience of the debacle surrounding Resolution 1441 led to despair, both in and with the United Nations. There was despair that UN resolutions, particularly those dealing with the Middle East, would no longer be taken seriously or, more important, be acted upon. In this regard, I welcome the confirmation from the United Nations that Syria has fully withdrawn its forces from Lebanon. This significant move follows a UN Security Council resolution passed last September and the assassination in Beirut, last February, of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. A United Nations verification team has concluded that Syrian troops and intelligence operatives have vacated all of Lebanon, including border areas. This is a very positive development for the region and for the United Nations.

As a result of the divisions evident over Resolution 1441, a spotlight has shone on how the United Nations functions, which is a good development. However, we cannot generalise about the United Nations. It is a very large organisation, with many functions and operations. It deals with women's and children's rights, trade conventions and Security Council resolutions. As is the case with international law in general, the UN and its conventions work well in thousands of ways every day, without a hint of controversy. However, when these break down, they do so spectacularly and in full glare of the world's media spotlight. Notwithstanding this, we must pay great attention to the recent report by the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, particularly where it refers to the Security Council. The pre-Iraq debates over Resolution 1441 demonstrated that reform is necessary. Kofi Annan has urged UN members to bring into the decision-making process countries more representative of the broader membership, especially developing countries.

That process should not impair the effectiveness of the Security Council but should increase its democratic and accountable nature. Kofi Annan has urged member states to consider two options, or any other viable proposals in terms of size and balance that have emerged in his review. The Secretary General's proposals include not just enlarging the Security Council, but also setting out rules on when it can authorise military force, and an agreed definition of terrorism.

Ireland should lend its voice to calls for member states to agree to take a decision on these important issues before the summit in September 2005. It would be preferable for member states to take this vital decision by consensus, but if they are unable to reach consensus, this must not become an excuse for postponing action. Ireland must be to the fore in driving this agenda and reform at the United Nations.

In this regard, I welcome the appointment by the UN Secretary General of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, as special envoy for UN reform. As the Minister has stated, the appointment is a measure of Ireland's long-standing commitment to the United Nations and of the esteem it enjoys in all sectors of the membership.

The third of the four areas I would like to discuss today concerns the treatment of prisoners. It is ironic that on this day last year mobile phones fitted with digital cameras were, reportedly, banned in US army installations in Iraq, on the orders of the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Quoting a Pentagon source, newspapers said that the US Defence Department believed that some of the damning photos of US soldiers abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were taken with mobile phones. One must question the thoroughness with which this type of measure is applied by the US as only last week we saw the publication in a British tabloid newspaper of photographs showing Saddam Hussein in a less than flattering situation. The newspaper in question said the pictures were handed over by US sources who wanted to deal a body blow to the Iraqi resistance.

Whatever the motives for the release of these photographs, we must question any contravention of the rights of prisoners and any violation of the Geneva Convention. No matter who the prisoner may be, it is a question of responsibility. In taking action, the United States, Britain and other so-called coalition forces, must live up to their responsibilities. Their major responsibility concerns planning for peace. Whatever doubts have been expressed about how the US planned for the war, there can be no misjudgment in the planning of the peace.

A Balkanised Iraq at war with itself is in the interests of no-one, least of all the Iraqi people. Having taken on the responsibility of ousting Saddam Hussein, the US must now shoulder the responsibility for handing over sovereign power to the Iraqi people. Each step on that journey must be a step closer to that ultimate goal. In this the United States and its allies need our continued encouragement and support. January saw significant progress on that journey when 8.5 million Iraqis voted in elections to select the National Assembly. However, progress since has been painfully slow. Lest we forget, this is Iraq's first true experiment with a fully representative democracy.

Just how representative the transitional Government is can be seen in the ethnic origins of its senior members. Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites are all represented, but it is to its Shia Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, that the Iraqi people and the international community will look for signs that a truly inclusive democracy is developing in Iraq. He needs and deserves our support and recognition. Never has that need been greater. Despite, or most likely because of, the success of the January election, the militants have stepped up their campaign, brutally killing some 620 people since Mr. al-Jaafari assumed office on 28 April.

The militants realise with greater clarity than those of us cosseted thousands of miles away, that we have reached the endgame. On one side there is a prosperous united Iraq, a beacon of democracy in a region unfamiliar with that concept, and on the other there is an abyss into which the hopes, dreams and aspirations of ordinary, decent Iraqi men, women and children will plunge.

I have seen in the Lebanon, and we have all seen in the Balkans, the results of the kind of civil war into which the militants are now trying to plunge Iraq. Sunni will fight Shiite, Kurd will fight Sunni and pro and anti-Government factions of all religions and creeds will fight each other. If coalition forces despair and withdraw from this spiralling violence, we will witness the break-up of Iraq with all that entails, namely, massacres, ethnic cleansing, refugees and starvation. All that will remain of a once proud nation will be a training ground and sanctuary for international terrorism. All the international community could do in such circumstances would be to throw a cordon sanitaire around the country and hope the cancer does not leach into surrounding countries.

What can the Government and people of Ireland do to prevent this appalling vista? For a start, we must remind Britain and the United States of their international obligations. We must remind them that they cannot walk away until Iraq can properly support and protect itself and its citizens. We must also do what we can to see movement towards United Nations involvement in Iraq. Currently, this is clearly not possible. However, it would be beneficial if the British and Americans indicated and updated a timescale for moves towards such UN involvement.

I would like, however, to sound a word of caution about UN deployment in Iraq. Whatever approach Ireland takes, we must support only phased and planned UN operations in Iraq. This is critical. We must not allow a situation where troops in blue helmets are left helpless in the face of atrocity. There must not be another Rwanda nor Srebrenica. Britain and America should urgently consult the United Nations about a timetable for UN involvement, but this should not mean that UN forces are deployed before the ground is suitably prepared for the task set. That is the only fair approach for the UN and for Iraq.

The terrorist bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003 forced the UN to wrestle with fundamental questions regarding security. The UN still plays an advisory and technical role and has reiterated its commitment to play a full part in the next stages of the transition to full self rule and democracy, including a referendum on a new constitution.

We must continue to support the United Nations and the Secretary General on both reform of the UN and moves towards UN peacekeeping and peace enforcement in Iraq. It is only through such an approach that this country will usefully continue its proud history of promoting peace and security on the international stage. There is too much at stake for the international community, the Middle East and the Iraqi people to allow narrow arguments about the rights or wrongs of the 2003 invasion to cloud our judgment. We must do all we can to support the United Nations, the coalition and the transitional Government in their efforts to bring about a brighter future for the people of Iraq.