Inside File: opinions split on Shannon’s function in looming Iraq war

Ireland voted in support of the Security Council resolution that paved the way for renewed UN inspections of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal.
The Irish delegation held the presidency of the council during the charged weeks of October 2001, just after the attack on the U.S. and at the outset of the U.S. campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Now, with the Irish delegation returned to the less than pivotal confines of the General Assembly — where the Irish representative is seated alphabetically between Israel and Iraq — the immediate Irish say in the issue of war or peace in the desert has been ended. But leaving the Security Council doesn’t mean that war against Iraq is any less a live-wire issue for the Irish government, opposition politicians, or the country’s voters.
Ireland just happens to be right smack under a main air route from North America to the Middle East. And Shannon Airport, as it did in the Gulf War, has once again found itself being a lynchpin in the U.S. military’s chain of friendly landing spots that ultimately terminates in the sands of Kuwait and other Middle Eastern destinations.
“The United States definitely appreciates the use of Shannon as a transit point for U.S. personnel. It is a mutually beneficial relationship,” Pentagon spokesman Major Tim Blair said.
Not everyone in Ireland sees it this way.
The temperature of the debate over Shannon’s quasi-military role has ebbed and flowed. It was hot during the Gulf War and started heating up again as the County Clare facility began handling flights on the way to Afghanistan.
In both cases, however, the Irish government was able to win the argument that Irish neutrality remained intact on the grounds that U.S. actions in the gulf were backed by the United Nations.
The possible new war against Iraq, one that might go ahead without at the UN’s imprimatur, is shaping up as a different matter.
In the meantime, not all of the U.S. military flight activity in Irish airspace even makes it to the ground at Shannon. Many aircraft simply fly over the island. The number of overflights by non-Irish military aircraft increased by 40 percent last year to 2,460, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin.
The department does not give a breakdown of which countries own the aircraft as this apparently requires the consent of the particular air forces involved. But it’s probably a fair guess to say that most originated in the U.S. and were either U.S. Air Force planes or civilian aircraft leased by U.S. Transport Command, which is headquartered in Scott Air force Base in Illinois.
In theory, all such flights are supposed to be unarmed, or not carrying munitions. But nobody is knocking on the bomb bay doors.
“We take it on trust,” said a Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman who explained that permission for each overflight had to be sought in writing. “We have no reason to believe that our good faith has not been met,” the spokesman.
Down on the ground, meanwhile, the number of actual military landings at Shannon was over 500 in 2002.
In the first of probably many verbal strikes last week, the Labor Party’s spokesman on foreign affairs, Michael D. Higgins, accused the Fianna F_il/Progressive Democrats government of breaching the 1954 Defense Act by allowing the landings. According to a report in the Irish Times, Higgins said that up to 1,500 uniformed troops had traveled through Shannon on eight flights in the 24 hours preceding his complaint.
This, he said, was in direct contravention of Section 317 of the ’54 act.
Section 317 states: “No person shall, save with the consent in writing of a Minister of State, enter or land in the State while wearing any foreign uniform.”
Higgins said that the government had “lied again and again” on its position regarding the stopovers.
“They are breaking their own legislation,” Higgins said. “They are ignoring their constitution and they are maintaining an outrageous silence on whether this is in breach of international law. What, I ask, will the government do if these troops take part in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq without a UN resolution? Where then will our stated policy of neutrality be?”
Where indeed?
The Irish government is not retreating in the face of critics such as Higgins and others. It has stated more than once recently that the overflights and Shannon landings are not in breach of Irish military neutrality. The government takes the view that the overflights and landings are permissible under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952.
The position being taken by the government is that while the Defense Act prohibits foreign troops from being “at large” in the state, the Air Navigation Order permits troop landings at Shannon. It seems that under the ANO, U.S. military personnel are never considered to be “at large” in the state. Rather they are simply “in transit” because they never clear immigration.
Still, they must disembark from their planes in the first place for safety reasons. They can’t remain on board while refueling takes place.
Again, the Irish government takes it in good faith that the planes that land are not carrying munitions and that they are not taking part in a military exercise or operation. Presumably, all that starts when the planes reach Kuwait and other hot spots. Neutrality, Irish style, is a fluid concept.
The debate on neutrality, U.S. overflights and landings, is certain to kick up more dust in the weeks ahead. There are now peace protestors camped at Shannon and a delegation organized by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs could be heading to Iraq in the near future. Michael D. Higgins will likely be among its number.
Ireland and Iraq used be serious trading partners until Saddam Hussen lost the head and invaded Kuwait. An Irish return to those more profitable days will not be possible until certain issues are resolved. Shannon still looks to be part of the resolution.