Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

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

Anon | 02.01.2003 12:12

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".

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


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

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?]

Anon

Comments

Display the following comment

  1. Ireland re-fuels yankee war planes. — Colin Cameron
Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
Regions
All Regions
Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Nottingham
Scotland
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on indy.im and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Schnews
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
VisionOnTV
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
Topics
All Topics
Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
Workfare
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Guantanamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
SOCPA
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech