Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Having listened to the debate for the past hour and a half, my mind is whirling in regard to how I feel about the points raised. The more one debates a subject, the more one can get confused. The question is how to get clarity from all the statements made.

There has been no debate on Iraq in the House since the formation of the transitional Iraqi Government in January. Since then, I have asked myself what started this process. It started from the point at which there was a statement that we must invade Iraq to overthrow a sadist dictator and try to bring some form of democracy to that country. I absolutely agreed with that. When reading of what that dictator did in terms of gas and chemical warfare and putting fear into the citizens of Iraq through his treatment of them, one could only agree that he had to be taken out. I thought the only way to take him out was through the actions of the United States, which was the only country that could do that.

However, since the invasion, I have come full circle in my thinking. While I agreed with the overthrow, I have since asked myself which was the better of two evils, given the current chaos in Iraq. The aggressors had a mindset which presumed all they had to do was go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people would swoon around them. Perhaps there was an element of this in the initial phase, but the United States troops destroyed themselves in the process because they did not have a clue how to handle people. They had no proper training, only the example of the might and the power of a President who said: "We can do this. Go in there, take him out." However, they forgot they were dealing with a resilient nation, which is fundamental to the breakdown of the whole process.

I have been shocked by the atrocities shown on television, including prisoners being decapitated and assassinated. The memory of those events rests with me. It must be asked why we, as human beings, have allowed ourselves to go that far. I blame the Americans, although it is awful to have to say this because I want to see democracy and stability in Iraq, as well as the reconstruction of infrastructure and health promotion programmes and the elimination of sanctions. I do not see any sign of these developments. Instead, I saw how soldiers treated Iraqi prisoners. How could that instill confidence in any European?

I welcome that a transitional Government is now in place and that there is an attempt to bring the Sunnis onside and isolate the radicals, although I do not know whether this attempt will be successful. There is a need to bring in an international body and to exclude the Americans. The Americans should not be in charge of anything that involves the psychological dimension of how to bring people on board. They are too isolationist and aggressive. We should include the United Nations, which left Iraq after August 2003 when many of its officials were killed. It took a lot for the United Nations to re-enter the field of negotiations.

An international body of people must come together on this issue, and Ireland should promote such a development. The Americans should not be involved in regard to any key area because they do not know how to handle such matters. They have alienated the Iraqis. There is no confidence in them and the result is chaos in Iraq. If such thinking could be brought to bear during the international conference that is supposed to begin in June, Ireland's role should be to help bring about a consensus.

The Iraqi people are like the rest of us. I have seen many BBC programmes involving fine intellectuals, even Sunnis, radicals and fundamentalists who are not absolute isolationists, who are able to sit around the table and discuss the issues. There is a possibility for progress, but this requires getting the right people to negotiate in order to reflect Iraq as a body of people, not as groups of Sunnis, Shiites and fundamentalists. That remains a problem, despite the belief of the United States Government that all it had to do was snap its fingers and it would take over Iraq.

Another issue that undermined confidence is whether the United States had another agenda, namely, the capture of Iraq's oil and gas fields rather than the attainment of freedom. If one begins to think like that, one will think that the almighty power is taking over.

My short contribution is based on my thinking as an ordinary person, reflecting a dinner table discussion as to how we should move forward. In focusing clearly on the personalities who deal with Iraq, I plead with the Minister to get the Americans out of the negotiations. They will not get this right.