Neutrality is quite clear, commentators are not

national | miscellaneous | news report Friday January 31, 2003 16:13 by Eoin Dubsky - Refueling Peace info at refuelingpeace dot org 087-6941060

Nobody owns the term "neutrality" of course, but some commentators in the media are choosing to deny its legal meaning so they can dismiss it entirely as a political, anti-British concept from 20th century Ireland.

** WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT NEUTRALITY **

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 not participating in the war.

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 our Constitution at Article 29.3 states that "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States."

You'll find the Hague Convention (V) here:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/docs/con5.html

"There is little doubt that under international law our duties as a neutral state in a case of hostilities would be to use the means at our disposal to prevent the entry of belligerent military aircraft into our airspace, to compel such aircraft to alight and to intern aircraft and crew." These are the words Con Cremin used considering a request for blanket permission by the US for military overflights.

Mr. Cremin isn't a peace activist or a subversive. The quotation comes from a government document now in the National Archives on the subject of neutrality, written in 1958 by Mr Cremin, one of the most eminent figures in the history of the Irish diplomatic service.

** BEING NEUTRAL, AGAINST THE AGGRESSOR **

Since WW1 the concept of being "neutral, but against the aggressor" has developed, though it is still quite controversial. The idea is basically that wars are generally outlawed, so there's no harm in Neutral Powers being passively opposed to the aggressor in a given conflict.

In the case of the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq, there is no doubt that Iraq is not the aggressor (I think that's quite uncontroversial). Whether we view the United States as the aggressor (as they were found to be in NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by the International Court of Justice, 1986) or prefer to stick to the safer Hague Convention V definition of neutrality from 1907 doesn't make a bit of difference re Shannon Airport. The only difference perhaps would be that the interned members of the United States Armed Forces (remember we need to intern them) could face charges before the International Criminal Court for crimes against Iraq under international law.

** THERE IS A WAR BETWEEN USA AND IRAQ **

Some commentators in the Irish media have conceded that in fact the legal meaning of "neutrality" above exists, but argue that it is irrelevant until "the war begins". Anyone with the slightest commitment to truth in this matter must agree however that the United States is already in a state of war against Iraq.

The US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated most recently in a TV interview on Fox News on 19 Jan 2003 that the United States of America is currently in a state of war with the Republic of Iraq.

In an interview on 19.01.03 with Fox News TV man Tony Snow, Donald Rumsfeld made this admission when asked whether America wasn't already at war with Iraq:

"Well, technically the state of war that began in 1991 has never ended. I mean, that has still -- there's currently a state of war with Iraq that has not ended."

(Quoted from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75985,00.html)

The following two articles illustrate how this continuous war is manifest:

* Airstrikes in Southern Iraq "No-Fly" Zone Mount
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post
January 15, 2003
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2003/0115airstrikes.htm

* Moscow Condemns US-British Air Raid on Iraq
Agence France Presse
December 2, 2002
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1202condemn.htm

Clearly, clearly there is a war, and its appalling effects are felt by the people of Iraq today, as they were yesterday and the day before that. Ireland's responsibilities include that we intern belligerent forces and their aircraft if they try to cross our territory.

Finally, as the government seem unwilling to confine themselves to the law, and insist on helping the US military violate the inviolability of Ireland's territory on a daily basis, I think its only fair that people in Ireland ignore the authority of this client regime of America and enforce the law themselves at Shannon Airport and wherever possible through nonviolent means.