UN mandate to turf US military out of Shannon

national | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis Monday June 18, 2007 23:44 by Coilín ÓhAiseadha aatchoo at gmail dot com 086 060 3818

Dept. of Foreign Affairs takes a convenient misinterpretation of Resolution 1483

While journalists writing on the front page of the Irish Times have reproduced the Department of Foreign Affairs' official line that the US military traffic at Shannon is taking place under a mandate from the United Nations, a close look at UN Security Council Resolution 1483 shows that there is more plausibly a mandate for Ireland to opt out of the US war of occupation in Iraq, because this has created conditions of persistent instability and insecurity there.

"A compromise on Shannon means that Dáil approval will be required before any non-United Nations mandated military flight will be allowed to land, but this will not interfere with the Americans' current use of the airport, since they now operate on a UN mandate."

This was a paragraph in an article by Mark Hennessy, Stephen Collins and Miriam Donohoe, entitled "Greens agree on terms to join coalition government", which appeared on the front page of the Irish Times on Wednesday 13 June.

The following is my response, which I submitted to the letters editor on 14 June but which has not as yet been published. Since the Irish Times - in contrast to several Danish papers I could mention - has a policy of not informing readers whether our letters will be published or not, I reckon I will publish my comments here without further ado, rather than go on playing the guessing game.

(Sorry, Madam, but I've got my deadlines, too.)

*****

Hennessy, Collins and Donohoe are mistaken when they write on the front page on June 13 that the US military flights landing at Shannon “now operate on a UN mandate”.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly referred to UN Security Council Resolution 1483 as a mandate to assist in the US occupation of Iraq, but a look at the resolution quickly dispels this interpretation as a convenient propagandum. (Propagandum: a misleading piece of information propagated as fact among the media and general populace.)

This resolution is freely available on the Web, and I quote:
“The Security Council … 1. Appeals to Member States and concerned organizations to assist the people of Iraq in their efforts to reform their institutions and rebuild their country, and to contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq ...”

(See http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/docume...n.htm )

Please look closely at these words: “contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq.”

The words “stability and security” must be taken at face value. They cannot be interpreted as code for military intervention. In the past, when the Security Council has explicitly authorised military intervention, it has sometimes used the word “force”, and sometimes the phrase “all means necessary”.

So, according to Resolution 1483, the Irish government must opt out of any measures that are likely to create further instability and insecurity in Iraq.

But in fact, the occupation forces have provoked utter chaos. Sir Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador to Washington, last week voiced a thought that had already struck many observers: "I personally believe that the presence of American and British forces is making things worse, not only in Iraq, but in the wider area around Iraq," he told a British cross-party group on Tuesday 5 June. (As published in the Irish Times at the time.)

Returning to Resolution 1483:
“The Security Council … 5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law …”

Now, the body of international law includes a number of international conventions, notably Hague Convention V of 1907.

Article 2 of this convention states: “Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.” And Article 5 states: “A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.”

Article 11 states: “A neutral Power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.”

The fact that the outgoing Fianna Fáil government permitted American troops to transit at Shannon airport makes Ireland de facto a co-belligerent nation.

Meanwhile, the draft agreement between Fianna Fáil and the Greens, approved in the Mansion House on Wednesday 13 June, states: “This government is firmly committed to maintaining Irish neutrality …”

Because the outgoing government declared itself to be neutral, it was obliged to abide by the terms of Hague Convention V. (The judgement in the case of Horgan v. Ireland 2003 supports this view.) And because Ireland has breached that same convention, it is in fact a belligerent nation that is defying international law by pretending to be neutral – what we might call a “rogue neutral nation”.

The same applies to any future government: If it declares itself neutral, then it must forbid the transit of US troops and military supplies through Irish territory, and it is obliged to intern any American troops that may land in Ireland.

Resolution 1483 reinforces Ireland’s obligations to help to bring an end to the current war of occupation in Iraq, by denying the belligerent US military access to our airports.

And when the occupation is over, we can “assist the people of Iraq in their efforts to … rebuild their country” by paying reparations for our part in the war,

*****

Thanks to Ed Horgan for assistance with a few points of international law, particularly in relation to Ireland's status as a "rogue neutral nation" - i.e. not neutral at all, but still pretending.

Please note that the above analysis does not represent a full critique of Resolution 1483.

Another important point, raised by former ASG UN Hans von Sponeck when he visited the Department of Foreign Affairs last November, is that the legality of the resolution is questionable, since it repealed the economic sanctions without acknowledging that Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. The trade embargo was originally imposed in August 1990 as a measure to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, and later extended until such time as Iraq had destroyed its WMD, so it was questionable to lift it without ackhnowledging that Iraq had fulfilled this condition.

We've got a long way to go to surmount the problem of a cherry-picking approach to international law, whereby successive governments pursue a policy that rests on an expedient interpretation of a questionable resolution, while ignoring other resolutions and even infringing fundamental principles of international law.

Best,
Coilín.