Feargal Quinn (Independent)

He did so in a balanced way. He was obliged to support the amendment, but I got the impression that he did not do it with enthusiasm. It is fair to say that the motion could have been accepted without an amendment.

I would like to make it clear that I take part in this debate as an unashamed friend of the United States. When it comes to friendship, this country should have no hesitation in counting itself on the side of America. The strength of our long-established links — both on an economic and on a personal basis — demand no less. So it is as a friend of America that I support this motion before the House. I do so in the belief that one of the purposes of being friends is that it gives people the freedom to speak frankly to each other. Being a friend does not mean that one must always agree on everything. Being a friend does not mean saying that the friend is always right. In an ideal world, people should be ready to receive criticism from a friend and accept that it is well meant and is grounded in affection.

One of the things I like about this motion is that it is focused on the present. It does not seek to rehash the arguments about whether the US should be in Iraq in the first place, or whether the American Government wilfully twisted and misinterpreted the intelligence it used to base its case for an invasion. These are very hot areas of controversy within the US itself at the moment and it is right that they should be so. It is important that they examine that situation but equally, as outsiders, there are other areas that it makes more sense for us to focus on.

Whether one is justified or not in getting into a war in the first place is one thing; how that war is conducted is a totally different thing. I would like to say, as a friend, that when America goes to war it must do so from the moral high ground. If it does not do that, it loses any authority it may claim as a defender of freedom and as a champion of democracy. If it does not do that, it cannot hope to maintain the support and respect of its friends. As we know only too well in this country, one has to defend freedom and democracy with one hand tied behind one's back. In other words, in fighting one must respect the very principles that one is defending. If that is not done, one's defence becomes a meaningless sham and the fight degenerates into a power struggle in which might becomes right.

This is why I believe that any freedom-loving democracy — whether it is the Irish State, the British state, or the American state — simply cannot afford to fight except by the rules that give its existence its moral authority. A freedom-loving democracy cannot afford to indulge in dirty tricks, regardless of what its opponents may do. We experienced this in Ireland in the past. If it is tempted to do so, it should hope that its friends will be quick to point out where it has lost its way.

There are some who laugh at the idea of rules of war, because they see war as a total conflict where anything goes. Others argue that it is ridiculous to bind oneself to rules that are not respected by those against whom one fights, but that is precisely the burden that must be carried by those who would defend what they see as a civilised way of life. If one believes in principles, one must live by one's principles even as one defends them against somebody who does not share one's beliefs. This is why it is with a very heavy heart that I watch how the US is carrying on its struggle in Iraq. One does not have to be against the invasion in the first place, nor harbour any feelings that in some respects the Iraqis were better off before the invasion, nor does one have to be an opponent of the United States, to see clearly that the dirty tricks they are using cannot be justified under any circumstances.

This applies to the abuse of prisoners in Iraq itself and in the offshore prison the Americans keep in Cuba, to say nothing of the proxy prisons it apparently operates clandestinely within the borders of the EU. It applies to the use of chemical agents such as white phosphorus referred to in the motion before us. It applies to the condoning of inhuman acts by those Iraqis who now control the Government there. It applies to all these things that we already know about, as well as to the perhaps even worse things that we have not yet found out about. In this situation, it is the duty of a friend to point out that the boundaries of acceptable behaviour have been breached. I believe a friend should persist with that message, even if we get nothing but abuse for doing so.

There is another practical dimension to this issue that is referred to in this motion, namely, the use of Shannon Airport. I do not object in principle to allowing the Americans to exercise the traditional rights we have granted them for more than half a century, especially since they now operate in Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution we are legally bound to support. However, that does not mean we should close our eyes to the possibility that our hospitality has been and is being abused. This House has tried to find the truth about that. The Leader of the House put down a motion on the Adjournment to determine whether that hospitality was being abused, but she was unable to get the answer to it. In normal times, a friend takes the word of another friend without question. However, when that friend has been discovered in repeated acts of deceit and has then tried to lie and bluster its way out of things, then simple prudence surely demands that we at least take the trouble to count our spoons after the guest leaves. Friendship is based on the assumption of good faith between those friends. When we have good reason to doubt that good faith, as I fear is all too clearly the case here, common sense suggests the need to pull back somewhat from a position of total, unquestioning trust. Certainly it is no part of the role of a friend to cover up a friend's wrongdoings. Unfortunately however, that is exactly the impression that our Government has sometimes risked giving in this matter. This is particularly true in respect of the amendment tabled by the Government parties. I hope that even at this late hour, the Government Members will reconsider whether it is required.

Our Government must consider carefully what it says and does on this question, both in private and public. If the United States loses the moral high ground in Iraq, it has lost everything. My fear is that out of lack of courage and a misguided sense of what friendship means, our own Government and people would allow themselves be dragged into that same morass. I believe there is a strong case to be made and we should examine its wording carefully. I urge the Minister of State to rethink the requirement for an amendment. I believe the motion tabled by the Independent Senators is worthy of support.