Shannon mentioned in Dail yesterday

national | miscellaneous | news report Thursday November 14, 2002 12:09 by kahootz

(From subscription Irish Times today)

Shannon arrangements unchanged - Cowen
By Marie O'Halloran

The Government has no intention at this point to revise current arrangements on the granting of military overflight and landing facilities at Shannon airport.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, said the Government "will continue to review" the granting of such facilities "in the light of developments". He told Labour's Mr Michael D. Higgins that the Government had received "no request for the use of military aircraft in the context of Iraq".

All usage of Shannon "is in respect of the resolutions that have been cited already". Mr Higgins asked: "Why are they flying to Kuwait for the international campaign against terrorism?"

Mr Cowen said "it is the view of the Department that what we are seeing here is applications being made for military aircraft in line with existing arrangements and we do not see any reason to change them." He said the landing of foreign military aircraft at Shannon was being done in compliance "with the normal orders".

He also said any move to military action against Iraq should be considered by the UN Security Council. The Minister conceded that there was no international consensus on the legal validity of a pre-emptive strike in the event of a material breach by Iraq of last week's UN resolution.

Ireland's interpretation of the resolution was that "we should come back to the Security Council" for authorisation of military action. But some countries believed a mandate for military action existed based on resolutions already approved.

Mr Gay Mitchell, Fine Gael's foreign affairs spokesman, called on the Minister to ensure he came back to the Dáil to seek the consent of the House before Ireland's ambassador to the UN "is instructed regarding any declaration of war or punitive action against Iraq".

The Minister said the parliament "may use its authority for the purpose of having a debate to hold the Government to account", but there was no legal basis for the suggestion that the Government was required to seek prior approval in relation to a Security Council resolution.