Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I will say instead that the then Taoiseach was being economical with the truth. So, he engaged in fear-mongering, provided misinformation and was economical with the truth.

The statements to which I refer were untrue because at base they rode roughshod over a series of very straightforward laws by which Ireland is bound. According to customary international law - namely, the Hague Convention on Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land of 1907 - a power that claims to be neutral is forbidden to allow belligerents "to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power". The law is unequivocal. We were not, as former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern claimed, non-participants in the Iraq war - and we are not today - or militarily neutral. We are belligerents and, as long as Shannon remains a forward military base for the US war machine, we will remain belligerents in an endless and senseless war that has led to deaths of over 1 million civilians and served solely to line the pockets of the arms industry, which has developed into one of the most powerful and influential entities in the world. The Hague Convention on 1907 is customary international law, and customary international laws are unusually strong, binding, and cannot be abrogated or disobeyed by states, regardless of whether or not they have ratified them.

The motion presented to the House in 2003 by former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern stated:

That Dáil Éireann, noting the imminence of military action by a United States led coalition against Iraq:

- reaffirms Ireland's commitment to the United Nations as the guarantor of collective global security and as the appropriate forum for the resolution of disputes threatening international peace and security ...

This completely ignores the fact that the UN Secretary General had stated that the Iraq war was contrary to the UN Charter. The motion to which I refer also stated that Dáil Éireann "condemns the continued refusal of the Government of Iraq over a period of 12 years to comply with its obligation to disarm as imposed by numerous resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, most recently in Resolution 1441". In 2003, the US wanted Iraq to surrender its weapons of mass destruction but as matters turned out Iraq did not have any such weapons. History has borne that out. The Dáil motion of 2003 was, therefore, based on a number of false premises. The motion in question also went on to state that Dáil Éireann "expresses its earnest hope that military action, should it occur, will be of short duration and that loss of life and destruction will be kept to a minimum". This was an echo of what happened at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, when everyone was informed that the conflict would be over by Christmas. The motion of March 2003 also states that Dáil Éireann "declares its commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Iraq". How is it possible to invade and destroy a country while at the same time respecting its sovereignty and independence? It is not possible.

It beggars belief that the motion to which I refer passed muster on the day it was debated. The motion goes on to say that Dáil Éireann "welcomes the arrangements put in place by the Government to ensure that Ireland will be able to contribute rapidly to the humanitarian effort in Iraq". As it turned out, Ireland played no part in the humanitarian relief effort in Iraq. The motion further stated that Dáil Éireann "recalls the long-standing arrangements for the overflight and landing in Ireland of US military and civilian aircraft" but it did not indicate that up until 1999, any US troops who passed through Shannon were either going on holiday or travelling to air bases in Germany.

However, all of that changed with the invasion of Kosovo, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

The 1907 Hague convention is customary international law. Such laws are unusually strong and binding and cannot be abrogated or disobeyed by states regardless of whether they have ratified them. Although Ireland has not ratified the convention, two weeks after the then Taoiseach was deceptive to the House in March 2003, a High Court judgment in Horgan v. An Taoiseach & Ors. stated that Ireland was in breach of Hague Convention V by allowing US troops to use Shannon Airport on their way to and from the war in Iraq. The ruling from Mr. Justice Kearns read: "The court is prepared to hold therefore that there is an identifiable rule of customary law in relation to the status of neutrality whereunder a neutral state may not permit the movement of large numbers of troops or munitions of one belligerent State through its territory en route to a theatre of war with another." This judgment effectively declared that Ireland, as a self-declared neutral state, was - it still is - in breach of its international law obligations.

Since the judgment, Ministers have argued that Irish neutrality is defined either as military neutrality or non-belligerence and that Ireland is not politically neutral. Based on the work of experts in the field, these arguments do not stand up. International law experts Professor L. F. L. Oppenheim and Sir Hersch Lauterpacht stated: "[A]ll States which do not expressly declare the contrary by word or action are supposed to be neutral, and the rights and duties arising from neutrality come into existence, and remain in existence, through the mere fact of a State taking up an attitude of impartiality, in not being drawn into the war by the belligerents." According to another expert, Professor Michael Bothe, neutrality is defined in international law as the status of a state that is not participating in an armed conflict between other states and "is incompatible with this conflict-restraining function of neutrality that states should try to evade their duties flowing from their neutral status by styling themselves non-belligerents".

Mr. Justice Kearns ruled that he was not going to act to address this breach of international law on neutrality on the arguably dubious grounds of the separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary. The Government was never held to account for misleading the Dáil and the people.

On the matter of the Lisbon treaty, which has been incorporated into Irish law, the Government in June 2009 attempted to clarify its meaning by stating: "The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality." However, the concept of military neutrality is not defined in legislation and the current interpretation is in contravention of the legal concept of neutrality as outlined in the Hague convention.

Ireland does not have a policy of neutrality anymore. Active neutrality embodies a commitment to the legal definition of neutrality as described by Hague Convention V and to the following values and foreign policy goals - peace promotion, non-aggression, the primacy of the UN and the confinement of state military activity to UN peacekeeping, not being involved in wars, impartiality and maintaining Ireland's independence, identity and independent foreign policy decision making. These differ from the concept of military neutrality that has allowed us to facilitate the movement of munitions and millions of armed troops who are engaged in invasion and occupation through Shannon Airport. What is most infuriating is that, since Mr. Justice Kearns ruled that the Government was in clear breach of international laws on neutrality, more than 2 million additional US troops and vast quantities of arms and munitions have passed through Shannon Airport. The Governments since 2003 have consistently been acting in breach of the High Court finding while illegitimately claiming military neutrality.

The aim of the Bill is to put an end to this dishonesty and illegality by strengthening the position on neutrality in the Constitution while eradicating the ambiguity that has thus far allowed the Government and courts to misrepresent Ireland's place and standing in international relations. The Bill's function is to take back the powers that have been abused by successive Governments and the courts since 2003, and for the people of Ireland to take back from the Government the power to allow the US the use of Shannon Airport as a military air base and the unfettered use of our airspace for military aeroplanes on the way to a warfront and to send Irish people to unjustified wars. We can only do this by enshrining neutrality in our Constitution.

Trying to get an honest debate and clarity from the Government has been a difficult fight for the years we have been in the Dáil. There is nothing but confusion. Four Departments are involved. They kick responsibility from one to the other. As the dogs in the street know and, when published, a recent court judgment in Ennis will bear out, heavy armaments are passing through Shannon Airport on the way to warfronts where more than 1 million innocent people have died. We have facilitated that and should be ashamed.

See this speech in context