Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The nub of the argument is a distinction between a policy of military neutrality as opposed to one of political neutrality. In the strict sense of international law and practice, the question of neutrality does not really arise during peacetime but only arises during a state of war or conflict when the neutrality of the state would be embodied in any attitude of impartiality or otherwise towards a belligerent or a nation involved in conflict. Ireland is one of a number of states that pursues a policy of neutrality or non-alignment in peacetime. It is a matter for each of these states to determine the nature and characteristics of such a policy. Our traditional policy of military neutrality, which has been pursued by successive governments, is perhaps characterised more than anything else by non-participation in any military alliance. We do not engage actively or positively in conflict. The Government reaffirmed its continued commitment in the policy statement earlier this year to which I referred in the context of my opening statement.

I want to refer to political neutrality. Political neutrality in international affairs has never been part of Ireland's foreign policy tradition. Ireland's approach to international security is characterised by our commitment to achieving collective security, principally through our membership of the UN, our contribution to conflict resolution and peace building, our work for human rights and development and our efforts to promote disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. These values continue to underpin and motivate our long and distinguished record of support for and participation in military operations that are sanctioned only by the UN Security Council in the cause of international security and peace. Our non-membership of military alliances strengthens our credibility in areas that are experiencing conflict.

In respect of whether the use of Shannon Airport by the US military increases the risk that the airport might at some stage be considered a target, I am aware, as are the members, of media reports referring to a possible targeting of Shannon Airport. I do not wish to comment on that nor do I wish to fuel any speculation or heighten any anxieties. As the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport stated when he appeared before this committee earlier this year, he has primary responsibility for the security arrangements at Shannon and all Irish airports. These arrangements are kept under constant review. Issues relating to national security are a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality but I can safely say that any threat levels are kept under constant review and surveillance.

The appropriate measures are taken from time to time. I have no evidence to suggest that Shannon Airport is at risk or that it is being targeted by anybody wishing to engage in any acts of aggression against our country.

I am aware that the matter of inspections has exercised the joint committee. It is an issue of great importance. Senator Ó Clochartaigh used the analogy of having his car stopped and being asked whether there is any contraband on board. He said he would not be surprised if his answer was not taken at face value. The answer would be considered by the questioners in the context of their suspicion or otherwise. I would see no reason for him not to be waved on if there were no suspicious circumstances, if he had made a forthright statement that he did not have anything to declare and if he was not engaging in any activity of a suspect or illegal nature. I suggest that the Senator's analogy might work against him, as much as he tries to illustrate it as a comparison.

I reiterate that permission for military aircraft to overfly or land in the State is granted at all times subject to certain conditions. These strict stipulations provide that the aircraft must be unarmed, must carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and must not engage in intelligence-gathering. The flights in question must not form part of any military operation or exercise. In accordance with international practice, foreign military aircraft passing through Ireland with the permission of the Government are not subject to routine searches or inspections. The principle of sovereign immunity applies automatically to foreign state or military aircraft in the same that it applies to Irish State or military aircraft abroad. For many years, Ireland accepted the generally recognised principles of international law as rules of conduct in its relations with other states.

Bilateral relations between friendly nations are founded on an element of mutual trust. Both parties have an interest in maintaining that trust and not undermining it. Details supplied to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade by diplomatic missions are therefore accepted in good faith as being accurate. Information provided to other states by Irish diplomatic missions seeking diplomatic clearance for flights undertaken by the Air Corps is similarly accepted by those countries as being at all times accurate. That is the position in respect of military aircraft. It is very important in the context of all these discussions and deliberations that we identify clearly the distinction between military and civil aircraft. There is often an element of confusion in the public press and in many debates regarding the clearly defined distinction between a military aircraft on the one hand and a civil aircraft on the other hand.

I assure the committee that civil aircraft are subject to the normal inspection regime, which provides for the inspection of aircraft in the interests of security and the safety of persons, among other reasons. This is where I consider the car analogy used by Senator Ó Clochartaigh to be quite appropriate. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed, An Garda Síochána has statutory powers of entry, search and arrest available to it. In the circumstances set out by the Senator, we take the assurances in good faith. We have done so in the past and we will continue to do so into the future unless we have clear grounds for believing otherwise. We do not have such grounds at present.