US military use of Shannon

Madam, - I read with relief your report that Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern was going to "engage with the US embassy…

Madam, - I read with relief your report that Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern was going to "engage with the US embassy" regarding flights through Shannon airport, and if necessary would insist on random inspections to ensure these flights complied with our international obligations. At last, I thought, we are taking our courage in our hands and, even at the risk of offending our powerful friend, we were going to ensure that our sovereignty was not compromised. We might even sleep more easily in our beds, hoping that those nasty terrorists would now realise that we would henceforth take no part in facilitating that illegal war in Iraq.

Then I remembered the last such engagement between the Government and the US embassy. That time, it was about our intention to place a tiny tax on chewing gum to pay for cleaning up the mess it makes of our footpaths. But our powerful friend stepped in and "engaged" on behalf of the big US chewing-gum manufacturer. Needless to say, the result is that there is no tax, no cleaning fund and no improvement in the state of our footpaths.

Good Luck, Dermot, give it a try - but take care not to come to a sticky end! - Yours, etc,

CIARÁN McGAHON, Rathmines, Dublin 6.

READ MORE

A chara, - Tom Ward (June 13th) is more than ready, as is the Irish Government, to accept without question the assurances of US Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice that Shannon Airport is not being used for "extreme rendition" flights. Like the Government, Mr Ward clearly considers this to be good enough. It is not, and there are number of pertinent reasons.

Firstly, as Jim Loughran writes in the current issue of the Amnesty International quarterly, "rendition thrives on secrecy". It would be wholly contrary to the interests of the US government, undermining the entire rendition programme, to admit the use of Shannon, whether or not it takes place. Therefore, simple verbal assurances cannot, and should not, be automatically considered reliable or sufficient, but must be examined in the context of American interests. And American military interests have been clearly served by the use of Shannon Airport, since the Vietnam War.

Secondly, we must examine the credentials of those who make such claims.

This is the same Condoleezza Rice who, as National Security Advisor, offered knowingly misleading assurances in July 2003 that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa. It has since been shown that she was aware, when making these declarations, that they were groundless.

This is the same US government which repeatedly told the world that it knew Iraq to have WMDs (until it became clear that it knew no such thing), the same government which then changed its case for going to war, regardless that the new justification violated Iraqi sovereignty, and thus international law.

This is the same US government which has significantly narrowed its definition of torture to include only actions that threaten organ failure or death, thus exempting a plethora of practices considered torturous, and therefore illegal, by the rest of the world. Trusting unquestionably such a demonstrably untrustworthy collective is either naïve or convenient.

Finally, our own Government refuses to examine US planes on the grounds that it would be (in the words of Mr Ward) "an unwarranted and hostile act" against a friendly nation. This is absolutely not the case. There may not be any proof of rendition, but there certainly is enough evidence to justify an empirical verification of Dr Rice's promises. Were the Irish Government to institute, as security procedure in these volatile times, routine examinations of all foreign private aircraft, would it not illustrate Ireland's commitment to global security and human rights? It need not be as a presumption of guilt.

Does the US exempt citizens of "friendly nations" from its security procedures on the grounds that it might be construed as a hostile act? Certainly not, otherwise there would be no Saudis languishing uncharged in Guantánamo Bay, nor any Australians for that matter. Why, then, should Ireland then cringe at imposing its security measures on the US? Surely a country like the United States, which prides itself on its commitment to justice and freedom, should applaud such efforts. Unless, of course, it does have something to hide.

All of which leads me to believe that the knee-jerk acceptance of Dr Rice's assertion has little to do with trust, and more to do with an obsequious commitment, not to justice and freedom, but to self-interest. It is not that the Government believes Dr Rice to be telling the truth. It is rather that it doesn't want to know. However, wilful ignorance does not absolve complicity. - Yours, etc,

DAMIEN MURPHY, Mountjoy Street, Dublin 7.

Madam, - So, the Americans were "caught in the act" last weekend. And An Taoiseach has, no doubt, searched every tree in Clare and found no evidence of misuse of Shannon Airport by US Government agencies! - Yours, etc,

J. O'GRADY, Herbert Park, Bray, Co Wicklow.