Aherne vindicated by support of IAWM, GNAW, GG

by iosaf ipsiphi & Mr O' as if. - being regularly misquoted, and a real treat and delight for plagiarists. Fri Dec 12, 2003 13:15 ipsiphi at diplomats dot com

who is going to sue who now and for what? - a list of possibilities.
As you may have noticed, the White House has decided to disallow non beligerent states a chance to bid for public procurement contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq which was illegaly occupied by the USA and allies this year.
It has been a year since I introduced the phrase "prosecution of War". I remember very clearly the confusion it caused in indymedia and other circles. People rightly asked "what do you mean Iosaf/ Ipsiphi?". But one of them wasn't the presenter of this morning's RTE news show. No, he didn't ask me what such a precious phrase might have meant, and probably isn't aware that I am it's crafty origin.

Anyway, this morning the international debt of Iraq stood at about 125,000,000,000 US$, and it is growing daily. Under the agreed international rules of the WTO, which I remember pointing out to everyone left Iraq due to the bombing of the UN building, all states and corporations have a right to bid for such contracts. I remember pointing out that this was part of the bitter pill that the USA might have to swallow, winning the occupation but losing the war.

Under international law, it is illegal to occupy another country without a mandate from the UN.
= sue the USA.

Under international law, there are hundreds of international contracts for oil, gas and other things which are at present "in frustration", due to the illegal occupation of Iraq.
= sue the USA.

France, Russia and Germany even little Ireland all held lucrative contracts with the Hussein Regime. There is no accepted legal mechanism to transfer contractual responsibility from a deposed state to an illegaly occupying state.
= sue the USA.

There are very few polite words to describe what is happening, but as everyone knows I am a "fan" if not a supporter of the 2nd largest diplomatic organisation in the world, that of the French Republic.
And you know the French haven't anything to say, they are "speechless with indignation", which in diplomatic circles often turns to beligerency. The French are still musing over UN resolution 1518, which was adopted on 24 November 2003. Yesterday as the world's journalists searched in their cryptomnesia for "good phrases" to describe what was happening, the French played a "UN card", and well let's be honest, they have been playing the "UN cards" all along, which i why I give them the time of day. So it was that they welcomed yesterday the appointment of Ross Mountain by Kofi Annan to Iraq.
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/article.asp?ART=39286
And I can tell you it looks pretty likely that ....
France will sue the USA.
€=$
now you may be sitting at your computer in an office, or university, or maybe an internet cafe, or a fortifed security bunker, or maybe your mammy bought you a tippy toppy range mobile and you're on the beach, and probably you're thinking "Wow, Mr O' asif, I'd really like to sue the USA but I'm not sure I can afford it, how can I help?".
Well don't worry, there are many more people you can and really ought to sue.

Ireland is not a beligerent state is it?
And if Ireland becomes a beligerent state, that would change Ireland's status wouldn't it?
= exactly sue the Irish State.

Spain likewise made a great deal out of it's non participation in the invasion, Mr Trillo the defence minister and the chiefs of staff of the Spanish Military, pointed out that their presence in Iraq was one of humanitarian aid, since they were not party to the invasion they couldn't be seen as an occupation force. Oh yes that was back before their spies were shot on the street. So, if Spain is not a belligerent, why is it allowed to bid for the belligerent contracts?

= exactly sue Spain.

Now you are probably thinking, "But Mr O'asif we have seen fine and decorated sons of our land, sue unsuccesfully the Irish State to establish what are the "norms" of our Neutrality". And you'd be right. And you might also be thinking "Don't you have to be sort of respectable and have a suit and a car to sue the Irish State?". And you'd be wrong. So I'll put it simply, "we" / "I" ..."&I" are looking for what are known as "strawmen" to sue the Irish and US state. It's not going to be fun, nor is it going to be easy, but put it this way:

If the post WW2 concensus of conflict resolution, and security appraisal, and international trade means anything at all, then we _must not_ allow a global situation where without even developing "Fair Trade", we move from "Free Trade" to "War Trade". Because anyone with a decent turn of phrase, and wee bit of experience knows, that this will either end up in a EU versus USA conflict or see the US move to a new global hegomony based on the oldest of tactis that of "sharing the spoils".

& that is a very important move from "oderint dum metuant" (let them fear and hate us)
the words of Caligula with which John Brady Kiesling prefaced his resignation letter in Feb. of this year. In many ways "oderint dum metuant" was a lesser evil than what shall soon come out of the twisted minds of Bush and co.


RTE using ipsiphi words:

Kieran Fitzgerald, director of trade policy at IBEC, discusses the
organisation's concerns
56k - http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1212/morningireland/morningireland56_2a.smil
[check out the "litigation" synchronicity in the surname of the next expert...]
David Horgan, managing director of oil company Petrel Resources, says
that the US statement will not affect the hopes of Irish companies
56k - http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1212/morningireland/morningireland56_2b.smil

& a little Indymedia background:
putting it clearly : "non beligerents get no Oil"
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=29205
putting it clearly : "oderint dum metuant"
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=31498

by David Fri Dec 12, 2003 14:27

It's Insane that he was allowed to get away with saying this!

Bertie should be fucking lynched by the 150 thousand people who marched against the war.

by conor (WSM personal capacity) Fri Dec 12, 2003 15:45

In an unexpected development Bertie blamed his "spaced" comments on the war on new special adviser michael turley

"turley told me it would meake a good impression on the er punters egh so he egh did"

by muck Fri Dec 12, 2003 15:58

Its not true (did I sound surprised?) that Irish companies are excluded: Petrel Resources Plc, 162 Clontarf Rd, Dublin 3, who had production rights over blocks of land in Namibia and Uganda (former, lapsed; latter sold to Heritage Oil & Gas Ltd, who now have sole production rights in Uganda) are working away in Iraq. but just like many things Irish, you will also find it listed as a "london based" company.
and thats only one of many.

investigations ahoy

by cf Fri Dec 12, 2003 17:23

Labour Party leader response to Bertie's attempt to depict himself as anti-war.
COMMENTS ON IRAQ SUGGEST TAOISEACH LIVING IN FANTASY WORLD OF HIS OWN - says Pat Rabbitte

“The comments by the Taoiseach in which he now tries to depict himself as a long-standing opponent of the war in Iraq are an insult to the intelligence of the Irish electorate and particularly to the huge number of people throughout the country who marched in February to express their opposition to the war, including 100,000 in Dublin.

“Mr. Ahern’s extraordinary attempts to reinvent himself as a peace-activist are in stark contrast to the craven approach he adopted to President Bush and his colleagues in the run up to and during the course of the war. When he visited The White House in Washington on March 13th, just as the conflict was about to be launched, he apparently managed to conceal from George Bush that he was ‘dead against the war’.

“If he did indeed oppose the war, Mr. Ahern kept it a closely guarded secret for the entire course of the conflict, refusing to give a straight answer to any question as to where Ireland stood, while at the same time actively facilitating the massive U.S. led military operation with the use of facilities at Shannon.

“He now claims that the fact that Ireland is not on the list of privileged countries that will be allowed by the United States to pick the economic bones of Iraq is proof that he was recognised as an opponent of the war. Why then did he tell me in the Dail during the course of the war that he presumed that Ireland was one of those included on the ‘list of the willing’ – the list of countries produced by the United States of those who supported the war?

“These latest comments are just more evidence to suggest that the Taoiseach lives in a fantasy world of his own. This is the same fantasy world where there are no cuts, only adjustments; where solemn commitments made at the election have been honoured; where the Attorney General and his office were involved at all time in the deal with the religious congregations; where Michael Smith supports Hanly, Martin Cullen supports the smoking ban and Frank Fahy supports the cuts in CE; where the €58m cuts in social welfare have no impact; where decentralisation has resulted from a process of wide consultation; where the RAPID programme is still alive; where the CE schemes have been protected; and
where he would rather not have gone to Hillsborough

by Tim Fri Dec 12, 2003 17:36

who gives out the planning permission in Bertie's imaginary Ireland?
OR does one just need to give a bowl of Shamrock to King Dubya?

by Fiona Fri Dec 12, 2003 19:37

This absurd, snivelling, ill-conceived, highly offensive comment by Ahern was clearly flagged a few days ago when Cowen had the gall to express concern about Irish neutrality.
(Am I to take it therefore, that when peace campaigners turn up at a Fianna Fail Ard Fheis they will be greeted in open arms by that doyen of democracy , and defender of our Neutrality, Ahern? No more arrests for walking on the grass?)
Is there provision in Bunracht na hEireann for dealing with Taoisigh who are striken by delusions, and have lost both their memories and their marbles?

by David Fri Dec 12, 2003 21:02

Don't give me this shite, Why can't the labour party come out and say that bertie is a lying snake who deserves the utmost contempt for that disgusting statement today

by lone gunman Fri Dec 12, 2003 21:07

The man is a politician.Worse he is an IRISH POLITICIAN.A fence sitter,ditherer,bend in the way the wind or fart blows,expensive useless,pig with his snout in our tax Euros.
of course he will say anything to garner an oul vote anywhere.Or to look wise and knowing.[ Note to Bertie!!Better keep your gob shut and be thought an idiot,than to open it and remove all doubt.]
You think this is bad?Wait till January and see the grandiose verbage that will eminate from our glorious leader.it will make Al Gore with his "inventing the internet"look tame.
ah sure not to worry ,sure we will be able to sell them iraqui lads a few oul cows.sure they dont classify as WMDs or anythin.The yanks wont mind that at all.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Sat Dec 13, 2003 21:56

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62682&condense_comments=false#comment56075

by lynchmob. Mon Dec 15, 2003 20:12

Bertie you said:


20.03.03 Statement by the Taoiseach to Dáil Éireann on the situation regarding Iraq

A Cheann Comhairle,

I have requested you to recall the Dáil so that the House can consider the serious deterioration in the international situation regarding Iraq. Since my request, war has in fact commenced.

The Government, like the overwhelming majority of people, in Ireland, and around the world, had hoped that we would never reach this point. We are dismayed that efforts to secure Iraqs disarmament by peaceful means have failed.

People are asking how we have arrived at this situation. Why did diplomacy fail? Why was it necessary to resort to military force? Why couldn't the Security Council agree? Why was the European Union so deeply divided?

The answers are far from simple and I will not be able to deal with them all today.

One thing, however, is very clear. Conflict could have been avoided if Saddam Hussein had complied with the long-standing demands of the UN Security Council that Iraq surrender its weapons of mass destruction. The simple fact is that he refused to do so.

BACKGROUND

No credible commentator would dispute the fact that Iraq is ruled by an evil and cruel military dictatorship. It is a regime which tolerates no dissent and no protest. It is a regime which has engaged in territorial aggression and genocide against its own people. I am not going to list all the wrongdoings of this regime. I will limit myself to its defiance of the United Nations.

Saddam Hussein refused to comply with seventeen Security Council resolutions over twelve years.

He forced his people to suffer the effects of economic sanctions rather than meet his obligations under the UN Charter. While the members of the Council, including Ireland, worked to ameliorate the effects of the sanctions, Saddam sought to obstruct the Oil for Food Programme and used the suffering of Iraqi children as a propaganda tool against sanctions.

He defied every effort to disarm him peacefully. In 1998, he broke his agreement with Kofi Annan to meet his disarmament obligations and threw out the weapons inspectors.

He allowed them to return last year, following the adoption of Resolution 1441, only in the face of a credible threat of military force. But despite the clear indication by the Security Council that he was being given a final opportunity to disarm, he continued with his old ways.

Since then he has played a skilful game of cat and mouse. He has done just enough to encourage those who wanted to believe that he might comply peacefully, but never enough to demonstrate a clear and unambiguous commitment to disarmament as the United Nations repeatedly demanded.

He has miscalculated; not for the first time. Tragically, the long suffering Iraqi people will once again be obliged to pay the price for his lack of judgement. Let us hope that this will be last time that they do so.

He has not only caused suffering to his own people, he has also, by his ongoing defiance, served to undermine the authority of the UN Security Council.

IRELAND AND THE UN

Like the overwhelming majority of countries in the United Nations, Ireland has no mighty armed forces to protect its interests. We are not a member of a military alliance. We look to the United Nations as the guarantor of our collective peace and security.

Ireland wants to see a strong and an effective United Nations. We want a United Nations which is united in purpose as well as in name. We want a United Nations that is respected. We need a Security Council which is capable and willing of ensuring that its resolutions are fully implemented.

On New Years Eve last, Ireland completed its two-year term on the Security Council. We did our utmost to ensure that the Security Council discharged its mandate to maintain international peace and security.

THE TERRORIST THREAT

The attacks of 11 September demonstrated that the world had entered into a new and dangerous era. The optimistic suggestion, put forward in the aftermath of the Cold War, that we had reached the end of history, proved to be seriously premature.

Instead, we realised that deep and mutating hatreds had travelled with us into the twenty-first century. Two particular threats have emerged.

The first threat is from ruthless and determined terrorists, who represent no state and who operate from bases in unstable countries.

Ireland used its position on the Security Council to urge a multi-dimensional response to this phenomenon. We supported the immediate need for a strong security approach. Fighting the terrorists directly through military and police action. Breaking up the terrorists logistical support channels. Cutting off their finance.

We also urged that action be taken to tackle the root causes of conflict: intolerance, poverty, and the denial of rights and freedoms.

The second emerging threat to international peace and security is from the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

What is particularly alarming about these new threats to international peace and security is the possibility that they will intersect. Terrorists might acquire from weak and unstable regimes their own weapons of mass destruction. This would, of course, enable them to inflict untold death and injury on those who find themselves the focus of their hatred.

The Iraqi regime has a proven record of seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It has shown a willingness to use such weapons against its enemies and even against its own people. It has defeated all efforts to make sure that it surrender these weapons. It has shown a willingness, given the opportunity, to strike directly against US targets.

RESOLUTION 1441

The Security Council, of which Ireland was a member, agreed unanimously to adopt Resolution 1441. This Resolution found Iraq in material breach of successive UN Resolutions and gave its regime a final opportunity to meet its disarmament obligations.

During the period leading up to the adoption of Resolution 1441, Ireland worked discreetly, but effectively to encourage consensus in the Council. We encouraged members to work from a single text and to refuse support for any course of action which looked likely to cause division in the Council. The outcome was, I believe, a vindication of our constructive approach.

As Head of Government of one of the members of the Security Council which adopted Resolution 1441, I can say, quite emphatically, that Resolution 1441 was clearly intended as a "final chance" resolution.

Serious consequences were threatened in the event of continued non-compliance. The point at issue, at the time, was whether the decision to resort to force was to be taken by the Council or, whether it was open to Member States to act on the basis of existing resolutions. The Council reached a compromise whereby it decided to convene immediately upon a report of Iraqi obstruction and non-compliance: "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Ireland made its position clear in the Security Council, immediately after the vote. We said it was for the UN Security Council to determine what action should be taken in the event of continued Iraqi non-compliance.

Other members of the Council, most notably the United States, stated their view that a second resolution was not a precondition for military action. They pointed to their strong conviction that there was an outstanding mandate for the use of force based on previous Resolutions. They were not willing to bind themselves to the obligation of waiting for a future Resolution, which, in their view, might unreasonably be denied.

The fact is there is no clear legal consensus on whether such a mandate exists. The arguments advanced by the Coalition are supported by a number of countries which are not participating in military action. Ireland, however, cannot participate in a military campaign without an explicit, further UN mandate.

I regret that Ireland's term on the Security Council concluded at the end of last year and that we were consequently unable to assist in the efforts to implement Resolution 1441. I do not know whether we could have helped resolve the divisions which emerged, but it has been frustrating to watch the unanimity which prevailed on the adoption of Resolution 1441 give way to division and recrimination.

It has been clear for some time that the only prospect of persuading Saddam to disarm lay in convincing him that a united, international, community was prepared to resort to force to do so. The use of force should always be the option of last resort. But it is in the nature of Saddam Hussein that he respects only force. Even the credible threat of force, which is difficult to assemble, and cannot indefinitely be kept in place, has failed to secure serious and consistent compliance.

The build up of US and British forces in the Gulf is widely recognised, including by Kofi Annan and Hans Blix, as the only reason Saddam Hussein undertook even limited cooperation with the inspectors. Unfortunately, the divisions on the Council led Saddam to believe that he could continue to evade compliance and get away with it.

IRELANDS ROLE

Ireland deeply regrets the loss of cohesion on the Council. We avoided taking sides and repeatedly urged all members of the Council to work together to achieve consensus. We were neither too ready to dismiss any hint of Iraqi compliance, nor on the other hand, unwilling to countenance a specific ultimatum. Without such an ultimatum, it seemed to us, Saddam's good faith would never be truly tested.

In an effort to overcome the emerging differences, Government representatives, on several occasions over the past weeks, urged members of the Council to address three questions: What precisely does Saddam have to do; how long does he have to do it; and what will be the consequences if he does not?

Had these questions been addressed in good time, we might not have ended up where we are today. Only at the last minute did the different factions within the Council signal their willingness to address these questions. By then, the gap was too wide to be bridged.

But that is enough of what might have been. We must now focus our attention to what is, and what might be.

Ireland hopes that the military action can be concluded as soon as possible with the least possible loss of life. We call on Saddam Hussein to put the people of Iraq first, to vacate the scene and allow this situation to reach a peaceful conclusion. There can be only one outcome to this conflict. Saddam will lose. But he can still spare his people further suffering.

We made it clear, on the adoption of Resolution 1441, that we expected any decision to sanction the use of force to be taken by the Security Council itself, in a further resolution.

The Government cannot therefore, participate in the military action that is now underway.

THE UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN

We recognise that those States carrying out the current military action claim they are doing so under an existing mandate arising from previous UN Resolutions. The legal arguments in favour of this position have been set out by the British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, and have been widely reported in the Irish media.

Today, the world looks on in deep concern. Lives will be lost on both sides. The Iraqi people will almost certainly suffer hunger and death. Iraq and the wider Middle East region could be destabilised.

I now call on all parties to this conflict to pay full respect to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their protocols, and other relevant provisions of humanitarian law.

Our position on this conflict is clear. The Government regrets that the United States led coalition has found it necessary to launch the campaign in the absence of agreement on a further Resolution.

I said some weeks ago that a second Resolution was a political imperative. In its absence we have to conduct ourselves in a manner which is in keeping with our Constitution and with our interests and we will do so.

SHANNON

I want now to address the separate question of whether Ireland should continue to facilitate the landing and overflight of aircraft belonging to States engaged in the present military action against Iraq. Essentially, we are talking about US military aircraft and civilian aircraft, carrying military personnel and equipment, on behalf of the US Government.

The Government discussed this matter at length yesterday. We have decided not to change our current policy in relation to stopovers or overflights.

I want to assure Dáil Éireann, and the Irish people, that the Government has carefully considered what is best for this country in a very difficult situation where no simple answers exist. We took our decision after long reflection. We took into account the present circumstances, the principles that underpin our foreign policy, our international relations and our broader national interests.

The issues concerned are not black and white. International relations involve difficult dilemmas. It is easy to address issues in absolute terms. The responsibility of Government does not always allow that luxury.

There are a number of important factors relevant to our decision.

The first and crucial consideration is that the Government does not regard the provision of landing and overflight facilities to foreign aircraft as participation in a war. This has been the consistent position of successive Irish governments and was our position in relation to the Gulf War. At that time the Government pointed out that whether any role adopted or action taken by the Government in relation to a Gulf War would constitute participation in that war is, in the last analysis, a question of substance and degree. The Government then and now maintain that merely to permit the use of a civilian airport in this manner is not of sufficient degree or substance to constitute participating in the war.

The provision of facilities does not make Ireland a member of a military coalition. Nor does anybody regard us as such. We remain militarily neutral. The decision we have taken on this issue is our own.

Ireland has made overflight and landing facilities available to the US for the last fifty years. This period covers many crises and military confrontations, which involved the US taking military action without specific UN endorsement - Kosovo, being the most significant. We did not withdraw or suspend those facilities at any stage during that period

There is no reason to act differently towards the United States now than we did during previous conflicts.

No other country is known to be contemplating the withdrawal of existing facilities from the US. This includes Germany and France, who have been the strongest opponents of US intentions on the Security Council. It also includes a number of Arab countries who have taken a strong position against war.

These countries would not accept that, by maintaining overflight or landing facilities to the US, they are endorsing or participating in the US military action. It would be extraordinary for Ireland to adopt a position of opposition in regard to the United States that no other country, not even its strongest critics on the Security Council, is prepared to take.

The United States and Great Britain are our partners in the Northern Ireland Peace Process, working with us to bring peace to our island. They are our biggest trading partners. They are the biggest foreign investors in the Irish economy. They are host to the biggest Irish communities overseas. They share many of our political and civic values. They are particularly worthy of our understanding where such understanding is appropriate.

The Government is convinced that the withdrawal of such facilities at this time could not but be seen, by any objective observer, as a radical and far-reaching change in our foreign policy and a radical and far-reaching change in the long standing national interpretation of what is and what is not participation in a war. Any such change at this time could only give succour to the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein.

Any such change could also be seen by the United States and its Allies as the adoption of a hostile position in relation to their country and their interests. Above all, any such change would create a precedent which would run counter to our long term national interests.

I recognise that the Governments position will not be welcomed by everyone in this country. I know that many people are deeply concerned about the potential loss of life in Iraq and want to signal their disassociation from what they regard as an unjustified war. The Government recognises these concerns and the sincerity with which they are held.

LEGAL ADVICE

I have included in the text circulated to Deputies a summary of the advice given to the Government by the Attorney General on the issues which arise.

I want to tell the House the Government has been advised by the Attorney General on the legal issues that arise. I will summarise that advice as follows:

The granting to the US and its allies of overflight permissions and the provision of landing facilities at Shannon do not constitute participation in a war within the meaning of Article 28(3) of the Constitution.

There is a clear distinction between the legality of Ireland granting these permissions, and providing these facilities on the one hand and the legality in international law of the proposed armed conflict in Iraq on the other. They raise separate and distinct legal issues.

There is a division of legal opinion on, and doubts as to, the legality of the proposed armed conflict in Iraq. However, the legal position of the US and UK on such conflict cannot be dismissed.

The absence of a further UN resolution on authorisation of military action does not of itself determine that the US and UK legal position is not sustainable.

The fact that other states are granting overflight permissions, and/or providing landing facilities while doubt exists as to UN authorisation, supports the view that there is no generally recognised principle of international law that would require Ireland to now withdraw these permissions and facilities.

In the absence of a UN resolution or judicial determination prohibiting the granting of permissions or the provision of landing facilities, Ireland is not now legally obliged to withdraw such permissions and/or facilities.

In the event of such a UN resolution or judicial determination prohibiting the grant of permissions or the provision of landing facilities, then Ireland would be obliged to cease these activities forthwith.

In granting overflight permissions and landing facilities, Ireland is not engaging in the threat or use of force against Iraq or acting in any other manner which is inconsistent with Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.

Ireland is not acting contrary to Article 29(3) of the Constitution in the granting of overflight permissions or the provision of landing facilities to the US or its allies.

In granting overflight permissions and providing landing facilities Ireland does not become a belligerent in the armed conflict in Iraq.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the absence of a further UN Resolution, and despite the very real threat of the dangers posed by military conflict, the Government is firmly of the view that it is right to maintain the present overflight and landing facilities for US aircraft.

CONCLUSION

The international community must now turn its attention quickly to the new Iraq which we all want to see emerge from the current crisis. We must act together to preserve the territorial integrity of that country. We must ensure that the constituent peoples of Iraq can live in peace, in freedom, and equality. We must free up the enormous resources of Iraq so that its people can live in the prosperity that is rightfully theirs. It will not be easy, but we cannot shirk this challenge. The benefits of Iraqi oil must be available to the Iraqi people. Iraq should thus have the ability to grow and prosper in a way which has not been possible over the last decade.

The Government has kept in close contact with the United Nations regarding the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. Minister of State Kitt will address this issue in greater detail later today. The United Nations will have an important role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. We in Ireland with the other Member States of the UN, should make sure this opportunity is fully taken up. I have indeed written to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the current President of the Security Council to institute weekly humanitarian briefings on Iraq.

The international community must recommit itself to achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians. There is a severe risk that the current crisis will distract the world community from dealing constructively, and effectively, with this source of instability, both in the region and the world. In particular, the world community must build on the Road Map for peace in the Middle East, which is being drawn up by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia.

The world now faces a dark and dangerous moment. The international community is divided. We must reunite and work together. We must help build peace and stability in the Middle East region and deal with the growing threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These are challenges the world cannot afford to ignore.

A Cheann Comhairle,

The Motion my Government and I have placed before the House gives a clear description of, and a cogent justification for, the Governments approach to this issue. I commend the Government's motion to the House.

ENDS************************************

wow. 17 resolutions.
loads of war.
Israelis, Kurds, Iranians, Iraqis.
lots of pie.
Do you trust Mr Bush?
Because this really is an important trial isn't it, aren't you glad you'll never get a trial like that.