Who can we really trust?

COMMENT

“Just because you’re paranoid, don’t mean they’re not after you,” – Kurt Cobain

WHILE I have been aware for a long time that I am not paranoid with regard to issues around the use of Shannon by the US military and Irish politicians’ attitude to it, I am fully aware that I may have come across that way.
I can remember well a reasonably large number of people who would contact the local radio station when it was discussed on air, saying the issue should be forgotten and that assurances had been given. For a long time, it has been regarded as an issue somehow only suitable for discussion by activists on the fringe. In various interviews with ministers and members of the last government, I have seen the anger in their eyes when I raised the issue and yet thanks, once again, to Wikileaks, we now know that even Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach was unaware if the “assurances” offered by the United States were dependable. In fact, we find out now that he was essentially pleading with the US not have him found out as a liar for the assurances that he was offering the Irish people.
The cables from the whistleblower website show a deeply unhealthy relationship between the Irish and American administrations. This is best exemplified by a cable written by the university lecturer and media commentator Harry Browne on the website Counterpunch and not by the Irish Independent. This is despite, as he said at the time of writing, both that paper and RTÉ being in possession of it. This cable from 2006 describes the American’s displeasure at the acquittal of the “Pitstop Ploughshares” or “Shannon Five” as they came to be known.
In response to their anger about the results delivered by the Irish court system, Dermot Ahern, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, tells them of the Irish government’s intent to change the law so as to close the loophole by which the acquittal was secured.
This loophole was that the people involved could not be prosecuted if they damaged property in the actual belief that they were doing so to prevent the loss of life or damage to property. Direct action of the type engaged in by these people to save innocent lives hardly seems like a negative thing but as it is a source of pique to US diplomats Ireland’s elected government were willing to change the law. In the end, this has not materialised but the inequalities in the US relationship with Ireland seem undiminished.
The same cable quoted by Browne contains the news that Dermot Ahern stressed the government’s concerns regarding the illegal Irish in America and its desire that some kind of agreement might be reached to accommodate them. This was met with a coldness, which in diplomatic terms was akin to a slamming door, the ambassador “observed that movement on Irish concerns about undocumented citizens in the United States would be difficult”.
American unwillingness to offer any substantive help in this area raises the legitimate question of whether it would have even been a fair trade off if they had. Do people really want Irish facilities used for the purposes of supporting bombing, ground invasion and occupation, with all the attendant loss of life and horror of destroyed lives simply in order to secure a better deal for Irish people living illegally in the United States?
It is difficult not to be incensed by the attitude of Dermot Ahern in the leaked document. It states, “In a November 1 introductory discussion with the ambassador, Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern urged bilateral co-operation to avoid surprises regarding US military use of Shannon Airport. Ahern recalled that the Irish Parliament had required him to explain previous US pre-notification failures on Shannon transits involving weapons and US military prisoners. He was also scheduled to address the European Parliament shortly on allegations that Ireland has assisted in extraordinary rendition flights, which he planned to rebuff on the basis of previous USG [United States Government] assurances on the issue.”
Reading this, I have the impression that the minister is giving the Americans carte blanche to use the airport as they see fit but to avoid any scrutiny, which might play badly in the public arena. This approach was essentially turning a blind eye privately while publicly telling the people that US assurances should be enough to satisfy them that the airport wasn’t being used for any nefarious purposes.
Colm O’Gorman of Amnesty International has summed up the situation succinctly, saying the government saw Irish citizens’ concerns about the use of Shannon as a problem to be managed rather than something to be taken seriously.
So what of the new Irish Government? Well, in the aftermath of Obama’s acclaimed visit, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has outlined his administration’s approach to the United States and the use of Shannon.
He said, “I reiterated the no-change policy in respect of the use of Shannon, in respect of American aircraft serving the UN resolutions, passing through”. There is a clever omission in this statement and it relates to other aircraft, which, in the past, have passed through the airport in Shannon and have been involved in extraordinary rendition. Particularly in the aftermath of the Wikileaks publication of documents relating to the issue, the words of a government spokesperson in the Irish Independent made for very interesting reading. “No changes are envisaged in relation to inspection of US military flights going through Shannon Airport.”
So, as was the case with their predecessors, the new Irish coalition Government will acquiesce to the wishes of the American government and facilitate them in their waging of wars around the world. The possibility of human rights violations being facilitated by the Irish State will be ignored along with the concerns of those people who feel the Irish State should be taking a far stronger stance on the issue.
As a result, suspicion will continue to surround the airport and its use by the American military and reasonable concerns will be sidelined and branded as overly suspicious and, in some cases, paranoid.