Blank Cheque: Revisiting Ireland's decision to refuel US warplanes

Wednesday January 01, 2003 23:51

by Anon

Part one of a two-part feature on Ireland at war

Ireland is participating in hideous assaults terrorising and killing countless people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will provide overflight, refueling, intelligence, and even troops for aggressions against any country on America's "terrorism top 60" list of foes. That is essentially what our Government came up with in response to Bush's call to arms: "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists".

According to a letter sent to Eoin Dubsky by the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 23 July 2002 (http://slack.redbrick.dcu.ie/rp/yesminister.html) following the September 11 terrorist attacks in America the Minister, Brian Cowen allegedly "waived" the normal safeguards controlling foreign military aircraft passing through Ireland "in respect of aircraft operating in pursuit of the implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1368". The Minister confirmed this only recently in answer to a Dail question on October 23 (Question 138 - http://www.gov.ie/debates-02/23Oct/Sect8.htm). Normally confirmation is required that the aircraft in question are unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and that the flights in question do not form part of military exercises or operations. Then under the AIR NAVIGATION (FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT) ORDER, 1952 "the Minister" can - exceptionally - grant permission to foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State.

That's what the authorities are saying anyway. It looks a bit confusing, and it doesn't help that the relevant orders allegedly made by Brian Cowen are not available because they are secret or don't even exist!

"Irish neutrality"
***********************************************
To begin, some background about "Irish neutrality" and legislation regarding foreign military within the state. The term 'neutrality' in international law refers to the legal position of states which don't actively participate in a given armed conflict. It should be distinguished from other uses of the term, for example to describe the permanent status of a state neutralised by special treaty (See 'Documents on the Laws of War' 3rd Edition, p.85). When Ireland is not participating in a war we have certain rights and responsibilities as a neutral power like every other country.

According to Article 5 of the HAGUE CONVENTION (V) RESPECTING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS AND PERSONS IN CASE OF WAR ON LAND "A Neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory." Article 2 states "Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a Neutral Power". The Hague Conventions are part of international customary law and these principles are evident in Irish legislation dealing with military matters. For example articles of the CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND most relevant to this debate are:

"15.6.1° The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

15.6.2° No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.

...

28.3.1° War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann."

People sometimes say "Ireland can't be neutral because we can't protect our neutrality from a foreign invasion like Switzerland can..." and I think they're not only mixing their definitions of "neutrality", but also where the first assault is likely to come from. The provisions in the Constitution above, and those attached to the AIR NAVIGATION (FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT) ORDER, 1952 are important safeguards against misuse of power within the state which could - and I believe it has - result in Ireland quickly becoming party to a dubious military conquest.

War and the law
***********************************************
In my view allowing US Armed Forces pass through the territory while their country is engaged in a military conquest is participation in war. No matter how you look at it though, now that the restrictions of the AIR NAVIGATION (FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT) ORDER, 1952 have been "waived" there is no ambiguity about the nature of this US military traffic through Ireland. Even though the Airport Police at Shannon Airport and Shannon Garda never verified whether military aircraft refueling at Shannon were in fact empty in the past, now it would seem that they are entirely relieved of their duties in this important regard. This is being done without the assent of the parliament and is therefore in contravention of Article 28.3.1° of the CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND.

Constitution
***********************************************
Like "neutrality", the term "war" is a tricky one. Generally in law terms like "aggression" and "armed attack" are used instead of "war". I don't mean to confuse things more, only to show you briefly that the Government's roguish conduct has also broken through other important fire doors in Constitutional- and International Humanitarian Law. To begin, some more important principles from the Constitution being flouted:

"29.1 Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

29.2 Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

29.3 Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States."

Aggression against Afghanistan
***********************************************
No UN Security Council Resolutions authorised the use of force against Afghanistan, and the US military intervention is also not justifiable self-defence. Therefore these actions, which are still on-going today, are an act of aggression as defined in Article 1 of the Definition of Aggression agreed by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 3314:

"Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate."

[This definition of aggression was quoted as expressing international customary law by the International Court of Justice in (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA).]

Threat to the Peace and Aggression against Iraq
The threat by the United States to resort to force against the Republic of Iraq without the explicit authorization of the Security Council constitutes therefore a threat to the peace, that is a breach of Article 2(4) of the CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS:

"2(3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

2(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

If the US will invade Iraq without explicit Security Council endorsement it will be committing a crime of aggression. Like the Minister for Foreign Affair's "waiver" for military flights relevant to the so-called war on terrorism, the Security Council might pass resolutions which are themselves unlawful. In any case, there is no Security Council authorisation for the enforcement of so-called "no fly zones" which America and Britain use to constantly attack Iraq. These assaults are criminal acts of aggression too.

Participation is Aggression
***********************************************
If the United States is engaged in an act of aggression, then allowing Ireland be used for perpetrating that act would constitute an act of aggression too as determined by Article 3 (f) of the Definition of Aggression agreed by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 3314:

"Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:… (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;"

Shannon Airport as 'human shield'
***********************************************
Use of Shannon Airport for refueling United States military flights during a war would constitute a war crime too as determined by Article 8 (2) (b) part xxiii of the ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT:

"War crimes means...serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts;…(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;"

Depleted Uranium
***********************************************
US military flights passing through Ireland could be carrying depleted uranium weapons or other 'nuclear material', which if they threaten to use to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial property damage would be an offence under the RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION ACT, 1991 SECTION 38. 'Nuclear material' in this Act has the meaning assigned to it by Article 1 of The CONVENTION ON THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL. According to the Act it doesn't matter whether the threat is meant for here or abroad.

According to Article 36 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, States are required to ensure that any new weapon, means or method of warfare does not contravene existing rules of international law. These rules prohibit weapons, means or methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, which have indiscriminate effects or which cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. The Geneva Conventions have been brought into Irish law most recently with the GENEVA CONVENTIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1998. Depleted uranium weapons and nuclear weapons obviously fall fowl of this Act.

How much longer will this go on?
***********************************************
Nobody can tell how much longer the so-called "waiver" will be in place and Ireland will continue to participate in US aggressions. Brian Cowen says it applies to all military aircraft "operating pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1368"... But he's clearly using the US understanding of that resolution as a guide (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1547561.stm). Ireland seems to think that with S.C. Resolution 1368 the UN has basically authorised the so-called "war on terrorism" and every oil - oops, I mean "terrorism" - related assault on Bush's agenda. It doesn't of course, but that doesn't seem to matter either.

We put the "mic" into machiavellian!
***********************************************
Here's something you can do RIGHT NOW - without even going offline - to see just how machiavellian the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen really is: Lookup the AIR NAVIGATION (FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT) ORDER, 1952 and see if you can work out which Government Minister made it. Lookup the Act and see if it grants the Foreign Affairs Minister powers to "waive" conditions attached to such Orders.

[There will be another article on Irish Foreign Policy here in a week. What are Irish troops doing in Afghanistan and under what command are they exactly?]

save preference

Comments (20 of 20)

Jump To Comment:

Of course, we wouldn't want to spoil your precious 'neutrality.'

by Irish-American

Thu Jan 02, 2003 20:25

When Hitler died, DeValera went to the German embassy in Dublin to sign the condolence book.

This, after Dachau and Auschwitz had been liberated by the Allies.

Then, Ireland was "neutral" in the 45-year struggle between the forces of Western democracy, whose protection Ireland benefited from, as it had in WWII, and Soviet totalitarianism.

Now some of you want to complain that it's some sort of "war crime" to liberate Afghanistan from the noxious Taliban and al-Qaeda, and the very small step of selling aviation fuel to us at market rates must be stopped immediately.

U.S. hegemony is Irelands happy little economy

by S. Aerobics

Thu Jan 02, 2003 21:15

Ireland was neutral during WW2 as 'Britains difficulty was Irelands opportunity' as the saying went at the time regarding the Irish struggle for independence.
Afterwards Ireland could not join NATO as one of the rules for membership involved agreeing to existing International boundries something the Irish government could not agree to with the issue of the Northern Irish border.
With the U.S. taking a high profile role in the peace process I presume this gives the U.S. some sort of unspoken right to use Ireland to fight terrorism with terrorism.
DeValera signed Hitlers book of condolence, Ahern shakes Bush's bloody hand but these day's the slogan goes 'U.S. hegemony is Irelands economy'.

Reply to Irish American

by Des

Thu Jan 02, 2003 21:18

Your first sentence is historically correct, DeValera did indeed go to the German Embassy, not an act I would exactly support, nor for that matter would I support Reagan going to Bitburg cemetery to pay his respects to the SS men buried there, (would you?). Who are the countries you believe formed the “forces of western democracy” during the period of the “cold war”, do you include the South African racists, the genocidal regimes in Central America who murdered hundreds of thousands of their own citizens with the support of one of the leading forces of “western democracy” (guess who that was?) are you aware of the millions who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? I doubt very much if those nations and peoples ever wished to be “liberated” by U.S. imperialism.
Are you aware of the genocide carried with the military, economic and diplomatic assistance of Ford and Kissinger (and successive administrations) in East Timor. The people who carried out the 9/11 crimes were once friends of your ruling circles, the people of Afghanistan were not responsible for 9/11 and somehow I don’t think they appreciated being liberated courtesy of your air force, a lot of them have being “liberated” into the grave.

Many of us in Ireland have no desire to be involved in any way whatsoever in “liberating” further people in Iraq or Afghanistan in the above manner. Half a million Iraqi children have already been “liberated” and those of us who have protested against the assistance rendered via refuelling to the U.S. forces, do not want our country associated with such appalling crimes.

What would Vaclav Havel, for example, say . . .

by Irish American

Fri Jan 03, 2003 00:19

to such nonsense?

Of course, he wasn't "neutral," he actually stood for something, for basic human freedom and creativity that was squashed by Nazi, and later Soviet, tanks. He went to prison, you know, because he protested the arrest of a musical group "Plastic People of the Universe."

And you know, when he was in prison, I was in the US Army on the "Central Front" in (then West-) Germany, my fellow GIs and I facing some thousands of Soviet tanks, artillery and tactical nuclear weapons under the command of that wonderful guy Brezhnev.
My commander-in-chiefs were Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

So I think that being part of that hegemonic military machine arrayed to oppose the jailors of Vaclav Havel was a good thing. And you know, I think most people in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, etc., (all those countries!) would agree with me. All free now, no thanks to you.

How wonderful it must be to be "neutral," to never have to take a stand or make a moral judgment!!

To be able to find all combatants, the Nazis, the Soviets, the British (yes, Ireland had a great "opportunity" in WWII, didn't it?), and us Yanks morally equivalent.

Well, don't strain yourselves helping us; I'm sure the Brits will let us land on their turf if making a choice between us and al-Qaeda, the Taliban or Saddam is too much for you to bear.

Right to resist violence and aggression

by Eoin Dubsky - Refueling Peace

Sat Jan 04, 2003 13:53

'Irish American' You brought up the example of Czechoslovakia to illustrate a point about Havel standing up for what he believed in. I'd like to refer you to another time in recent European history involving the Czechs to illustrate another point:

Read Hitler's speech in September 1938, on the eve of the invasion of Czechoslovakia. "I know quite well," he ranted at the great Nuremberg rally, "that through forbearance one will never reconcile so irreconcilable an enemy as are the Czechs ... Herr Benes (the Czech leader) plays his tactical game; he makes speeches, he wishes to negotiate... But in the long run that is not good enough!"

The historian Correlli Barnett commented: "Change Czechs and Benes to Saddam Hussein and the speech could have been drafted in Washington today. Needless to say, President Benes's Czechoslovakia in 1938 posed no threat to Germany and was militarily outclassed - just as the militarily even more outclassed Iraqis today in no way threaten the US or the UK."

If pigs had wings they'd be pigeons!

Sat Jan 04, 2003 17:50

as you said "change Benes to Saddam Hussein."

Last Comment

Sat Jan 04, 2003 18:59

I can see that attempting to convince you that the deaths of half a million children in Iraq and that the bombing of one of the poorest countries in the world (Afghanistan) are morally wrong, is a waste of time. Your finely honed debating skills have defeated me. Obviously, you (and Dubya) operate at a different intellectual level than the rest of us.

If your ideas can't stand the scrutiny you should rethink them

Sun Jan 05, 2003 21:41

Sorry, Des, if I pointed out an absurd analogy, but any "historian" who compared Benes to Saddam Hussein should be laughed out of town.

Why not go further and substitute "Hitler" for "Benes" and "Roosevelt" for "Hitler?"

Irish American, I wasn't talking about Benes

Mon Jan 06, 2003 21:02

Irish American, the historian's quotation wasn't intended to say anything about Benes, or his possible likeness to Saddam Hussein... The point the historian is making is about Bush's hretoric, and the former German Justice Minister also remarked a few months ago about the likeness of US propaganda to Nazi propaganda.

While some lazy commentators have said that the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emtive assaults is new, generally people who attribute it in recent history to Nazi Germany.

Dubsky

by local

Tue Jan 07, 2003 00:08

Dubsky your only a troublemaker , you should stay in your little hovel in Wexford. Everyone knows that its only troops going through Shannon. The airport was used by the yanks for the last 30 years everyone knew the score but now that yourself and Tim the Prick Hourigan have got a bee in yeer bonnet, yee are proclaiming that there is all kinds of gear going through frightening the public and whipping up a frenzy over nothing . If yee have evidence produce it otherwise shut up and go back into yeer holes and give us all a break.

to 'Local' Troll.

by 'Tim the Prick Hourigan'

Tue Jan 07, 2003 01:08

"Dubsky your only a troublemaker"
Poor grammar but somewhat correct,
Dubsky is a troublemaker. Thank God for troublemakers. it's brain-dead sheep like you that remain silent while innocents die.
Of course Eoin is not ONLY a troublemaker.

"Everyone knows that its only troops going through Shannon."

Really? Who is "Everyone"?
What troops are on a KC-130 refuelling tanker? What troops are on World Airways's cargo freighters?
What troops are on the Navy C-9s and C-20s?
What troops were on the C-% Galaxy Transporters?

"The airport was used by the yanks for the last 30 years everyone knew the score"

Really? Then why is it NEWS? Why was it on the Sunday Mirror's front page? You dodn't like that do you?

"If yee have evidence produce it otherwise shut up and go back into yeer holes and give us all a break."

You'll never see the evidence unless you take your head out of the sand, (or whatever cavity you have it buried in).

by the way, my middle name is "Edward" not "the Prick" but you haven't the guts to use your real name.

EVERYONE KNOWS?

by FRANK MCCURTAIN

Tue Jan 07, 2003 01:13

CORK - VERY LOCAL TO IRELAND

Everyone knows that its only troops going through Shannon. ... yee are proclaiming that there is all kinds of gear going

WHAT WAS THAT IN THE TRIAL THEN?
DIDN'T THE GUARDS AND ALL THE AIRPORT COPS SAY THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT WAS ON THOSE PLANES?

Relief

Tue Jan 07, 2003 01:25

Glad to see that you are still in charge Tim, I was beginning to take that J.S. has made a successful take over bid. See you tomorrow nite.
And remember, keep calm, leadership has it's demanding side.

KRONSTADT etc. etc.

Nazi/US Propaganda

by Shane Gallagher

Wed Jan 08, 2003 08:44

shane.montague-gallagher at stonebow dot otago dot ac dot nz

6 Jellicoe Crescent, Wakari, Dunedin

On the topic of US propaganda sounding like Nazi propaganda; does this quote sound familiar:
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
This is an extract from a piece written by Adoph Hitler about the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.

And as for that Irish-American; he seems to have the very short memory customary to people from his country. We suffered for hundreds of years under the imperial superpower that was Britain. The US has taken on that role and the US uses the same excuse the Brits always used, except that it is worded a little differently. The Brits sought to "bring civilisation" to the poor savage natives, and now the US wants to bring "democracy" to the same people a few decades later...

US Foreign Policy

by Impartial Observer

Wed Jan 08, 2003 17:42

US foreign policy amounts simply to what is expedient and in the best interests of the United States at any given time.

DeVelara visiting the German embassy is acknowledged today by Irish people as something entirely unrepresentative of public sentiment both at the time and today. It was not one of his greatest moments. However, it was explained at the time not as a gesture of support for the nazi regime, but as an expression of respect from the people of one nation to another (any nation) on the death of their 'leader'.

Ireland chose neutrality as a country having been oppressed by occupiers for over 700 years, having experienced two bloody revoloutions (1798 & 1916), a famine which wiped out one million people (1840s), and a vicious civil war (1922) which pitted brother against brother. It also did so in the climate of the time, having been rid once and for all of British imperialism, and perhaps naively so.

Had Churchill (who also wished for Britain to invade Ireland - again - duirng the war) been the one to die, DeValera would have been equally hasty in signing a book of condolence addressed to the people of that country.

Also, don't forget either than tens of thousands of Irish people fought as members of the British Army against nazi tyranny. Ireland supplied Britain with many of its foodstuffs during the war, took its children into shelter, helped extinguish the fires of Belfast

Irish people are quick to acknowledge that Britain and the allies actually saved our bacon in WW2. Many also appreciate that in the event of conflict it is on the likes of the US and the UK which we will rely once again.

It is our neutrality which has allowed us to be peace makers in the world both through extensive UN involvement (by our troops) and through diplomatic means.

Irish foreign policy can be equally expedient today as it was in the 1940s. It is regrettable but also inevitable that our neutrality now forms part of that expediency.

We are the most globally open economy in the world today (AT Kearney Survey 07-01.03), we depend very much economically on US goodwill. If letting their planes land at Shannon is a necessary evil then so be it it. It is politically and economically expedient to do so. The truth be told - they don't have to land at Shannon in any case - it is all just semantics.

All the best, Impartial Observer.

expediency

by kittykat

Thu Jan 16, 2003 13:52

yes it is politically and economically expedient but for godsake don't take any moral stance!! just kiss ass to the school bully so he won't take your lunch money.

when it suits US business interests to take their business elsewhere, they will, and history will remember us as a nation who 'impartially observed' as the two wealthiest, most powerful nations in the world butchered a nation already depilitated by 12 years of crippling sanctions, in the interests, of course, of democracy and peace.

who put saddam there in the first place? and what makes anyone think that the pattern won't simply be repeated all over again?

fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

to all those who agree with Irish American and 'local'

by Rachael

Mon Jan 20, 2003 14:33

doylerachael at hotmail dot com

0863067289

I am producing a documentary concerning the use of Shannon airport by the U.S. and am having difficulty finding people who share your views to contribute to it. You seem to feel strongly about the subject and i am offering you an opportunity to voice your opinions in front of a camera. So guys please put your money where your mouth is!
My e-mail is [email protected].

Free Ireland of U.S. War Machine (to mr Irish american)

by Irish citizen

Thu Feb 06, 2003 03:02

I Think Mr Irish American that you should FUCK off back to America and continue watching CNN. And maybe study up on a little Irish history.

Thu Feb 06, 2003 03:24

bum choices

by gillies macbain

Wed Apr 16, 2003 09:41

cranagh at eircom dot net

county tipperary

even when peace people debate - i often see two committed sides lining up, and this "you are either for us or against us " tendency needs a name. i call it a "double hobson."

'hobsons choice' means no choice at all. a 'double hobson' would be when they assure you that there are only two choices. bush or gore. (no thanks) you are with bush or with saddam hussein. (no thanks )

the true irish subversive - given a choice between two things - always manages to come up with a third.

maybe that is some kind of definition of neutrality ?

gillies

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Blank Cheque: Revisiting Ireland's decision to refuel US warplanes

Comments (20 of 20)