ah pana has some details on this

http://www.pana.ie/idn/200504.html

Quote :

Sinn Féin spokesperson on International Affairs Aengus Ó Snodaigh this afternoon called on the Irish Government to "come clean and admit that Irish neutrality is a lie". Deputy Ó Snodaigh was responding to comments made by Minister Brian Cowen in response to a question on Ireland's neutrality in the Dáil today. Deputy Ó Snodaigh said: "The Government has claimed that they have not breached Irish neutrality but the Irish people have a right to know exactly how the Government defines it and whether it even exists? For many weeks now I have been attempting to conduct what I would call a neutrality audit. I have asked a number of different Ministers a range of questions designed to ascertain to what extent our so-called neutrality is being breached by facilitating foreign military aircraft and ships on their way to war. So far the Government have refused to provide a comprehensive account.

"Again today the Minister refused point blank to answer my specific questions.

However he did acknowledge that the Irish Government, alone amongst the international community, has a different definition of military neutrality to everybody else. He specifically said that he does not accept the Hague Convention definition of neutrality. But rather than provide the Governments alternative definition he claimed that in Irelands case it was best to keep it vague. And in an attempt to try and confuse the matter further he mischievously suggested that a UN Charter had since negated the 1907 Hague Convention in terms of defining the rights and duties of neutral states.

"It is clear from the Ministers response today, or the lack of it, that this Government has long since abandoned any desire or wish to respect and defend what most people regard as a positive aspect of Ireland's foreign policy.

People think Irish participation in UN peacekeeping is great. When I served in the Irish Defense Forses I met some guys with great stories about the Congo. I, like a complete donkey, did not know anything about copper and cobalt and had never heard about Katanga. I am looking forward to the RIP thread on Pie when that Irish Slug soon dies so that I can cheer. It was a pity they all didn't get killed. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3659963934970649657&q=katanga&ei=qso1SL2OEKLW-AGCkvHgCQ&hl=en

Ah - the John Birch Society. That should be a reliable source of information.

so there is _a definition_ of neutrality a hauge convention one, will look it up later...

Yes but it is true Cactus. They went in and killed and butchered. Do you have a knowledge of the John Birch Society . The newscasts on that video do not lie but some people are afraid of the truth if it conflicts with their beliefs. Those people were killed for the minerals.

lostexpectation wrote:

the us airplane spray painting guy was protesting this before iraq happened did anything significant come out of his trial?

Yup lots of significant stuff. If folks were appalled at the results of the Horgan case it would be a good idea to not read the rest of this comment.

Eoin Dubsky took a case against the state for violating Article 28.3.1 (that Ireland was participating in a war in Afghanistan without the assent of Dáil Éireann). When Eoin initially launched his case the Iraq war had not started and therefore he couldn't include it when subsequently arguing his case. It was also argued that the war in Afghanistan was contrary to the provisions of Article 29 (specifically 29.1 to 29.4).

The only real defence that the state offered was that the war in Afghanistan was not a war as the US had not declared war. Macken J. the presiding judge went much further than this. She demanded that Eoin's legal team define war in terms of the Irish Constitution and then she (one of the world's foremost experts on patenting laws) tore it to shreds. Unfortunately for Eoin's team imo, they did not include Article 39 as part of this definition (this article on treason equates war with other acts).

Some others and I met with Eoin after the costs issue had been resolved in order to discuss the possibility of an appeal. There would have been many issues that would have facilitated a very decent chance that an appeal would have succeeded, not least of which was that the war in Iraq was well under way, we could have used it and it most certainly was a war. Unfortunately the appeal never happened for many reasons that I'll not go into, other than to say that it is not my intention to besmirch Eoin in any way, the reasons for not appealing were very valid. Eoin is to be credited for his very ballsy stance when many who would have been in a better position to take such a case were wetting themselves and hiding out (I'm not referring to members of the various anti-war movements).

The Dubsky case leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, so I'll leave it at that. Here's some links so that you guys can experience this bad taste too.


Eoin's written submission: Link

Macken J. the ruling: Link

Indymedia article dated the day before the costs ruling: Link

Quote :

However he did acknowledge that the Irish Government, alone amongst the
international community, has a different definition of military
neutrality to everybody else. He specifically said that he does not
accept the Hague Convention definition of neutrality. But rather than
provide the Governments alternative definition he claimed that in
Irelands case it was best to keep it vague. And in an attempt to try
and confuse the matter further he mischievously suggested that a UN
Charter had since negated the 1907 Hague Convention in terms of
defining the rights and duties of neutral states.

"It is clear
from the Ministers response today, or the lack of it, that this
Government has long since abandoned any desire or wish to respect and
defend what most people regard as a positive aspect of Ireland's
foreign policy.

Perhaps "most people" could also be asked point-blank questions - that's not sarcasm, either.

Ireland benefits from being neutral - yes? And most people regard it as being a positive aspect of ireland's foreign policy.

So what exactly is positive about it? Is it just the "being neutral", or is it something in particular about being neutral?

If the former, then the Minister is right. If we keep it vague, and keep the benefits of being a neutral country, while avoiding the 'drawbacks', does that not benefit Ireland more than a rigid adherence to a legal principle of neutrality?

If the latter, what is it about neutrality that they see as positive? There seem to be as many definitions of what ireland's neutrality is or should be as there are people!

Finally, what of those who regularly claim that Ireland is not really neutral? Do they want Ireland to join NATO, or do they mean "we want you to stop doing X"?

Very interesting. Ireland I think directly is part of the Afghanistan invasion and occupation - was that not part of the case ? Do you know if the Dail voted on our participation?

ibis wrote:

Quote :

However he did acknowledge that the Irish Government, alone amongst the
international community, has a different definition of military
neutrality to everybody else. He specifically said that he does not
accept the Hague Convention definition of neutrality. But rather than
provide the Governments alternative definition he claimed that in
Irelands case it was best to keep it vague. And in an attempt to try
and confuse the matter further he mischievously suggested that a UN
Charter had since negated the 1907 Hague Convention in terms of
defining the rights and duties of neutral states.

"It is clear
from the Ministers response today, or the lack of it, that this
Government has long since abandoned any desire or wish to respect and
defend what most people regard as a positive aspect of Ireland's
foreign policy.

Perhaps "most people" could also be asked point-blank questions - that's not sarcasm, either.

Ireland benefits from being neutral - yes? And most people regard it as being a positive aspect of ireland's foreign policy.

So what exactly is positive about it? Is it just the "being neutral", or is it something in particular about being neutral?

If the former, then the Minister is right. If we keep it vague, and keep the benefits of being a neutral country, while avoiding the 'drawbacks', does that not benefit Ireland more than a rigid adherence to a legal principle of neutrality?

If the latter, what is it about neutrality that they see as positive? There seem to be as many definitions of what ireland's neutrality is or should be as there are people!

Finally, what of those who regularly claim that Ireland is not really neutral? Do they want Ireland to join NATO, or do they mean "we want you to stop doing X"?

They are being honest - whether Avril Doyle who is pro NATO or people who are pacificists. I would have thought they are a mixed bunch with many different agendas and in some cases none.

cactus flower wrote:

Very interesting. Ireland I think directly is part of the Afghanistan invasion and occupation - was that not part of the case ? Do you know if the Dail voted on our participation?

That was a major part of the case. And no, the Dáil did not vote to participate. Check out the link I gave for the Dubsky written submissions - some really eye-opening stuff.

Hermes wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Very interesting. Ireland I think directly is part of the Afghanistan invasion and occupation - was that not part of the case ? Do you know if the Dail voted on our participation?

That was a major part of the case. And no, the Dáil did not vote to participate. Check out the link I gave for the Dubsky written submissions - some really eye-opening stuff.

Its a funny co-incidence that Afghanistan and Chad are two of the poorest countries on the planet.

I don't know much about Chad but Afghanistan's exports are probably worth hundreds of billions

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Finally, what of those who regularly claim that Ireland is not really neutral? Do they want Ireland to join NATO, or do they mean "we want you to stop doing X"?

They are being honest - whether Avril Doyle who is pro NATO or people who are pacificists. I would have thought they are a mixed bunch with many different agendas and in some cases none.

Sure, there are those who openly say we shouldn't be neutral, and that we should join NATO, but I'm not really thinking about them, since their intentions are visible. I was thinking more of those like the TD in the original quote.

youngdan wrote:

I don't know much about Chad but Afghanistan's exports are probably worth hundreds of billions

They are certainly worth more since the Taliban were displaced and the poppy growing started again.

The taliban had stamped out a huge money maker. Who needs a barrel of oil at 135 dollars when a barrel of powder is worth 10 million dollars.

It is established fact that the Taliban stopped the Opium production - UN 2001 report here.
http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html

Your army and I'm deeply ashamed to say a few of ours have made sure that tribal warlords brought it back bigger than ever. Pictures here.

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/asia/afghanistan/afghanistan.html

How we can associate ourselves with this I just don't understand.

The UN says opium production in Afghanistan has soared to record levels, with an increase on last year of more than a third.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime report says the amount of opium produced there has doubled in the last two years.

It says Helmand province is now the biggest single drug-producing area in the world, surpassing whole countries such as Colombia.

Afghanistan now accounts for more than 93% of the world's opiates.

August 2007 BBC News

Link to Willie O'Dea's speech in 2006 renewing commitment for further 12 months.

Link

Clear account of Ireland's involvement in Afghanistan here -
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80106

An Irish film-maker who filmed a US atrocity in Afghanistan - link here -

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/06/15/massacre/index.html

I think it was Hermes who posted here that Irish participation is ISAF did not go before the Dail.
It may have gone to court in the Dubsky case. I can't see how it could be considered within the Constitution.

IMHO Chad is another terrible mistake

ibis wrote:

If the former, then the Minister is right. If we keep it vague, and keep the benefits of being a neutral country, while avoiding the 'drawbacks', does that not benefit Ireland more than a rigid adherence to a legal principle of neutrality?

If the latter, what is it about neutrality that they see as positive? There seem to be as many definitions of what ireland's neutrality is or should be as there are people!

Finally, what of those who regularly claim that Ireland is not really neutral? Do they want Ireland to join NATO, or do they mean "we want you to stop doing X"?

i want to stop hiding behind neutrality in order to facilitate (US) wars of aggression and for money.

lostexpectation wrote:

ibis wrote:

If the former, then the Minister is right. If we keep it vague, and keep the benefits of being a neutral country, while avoiding the 'drawbacks', does that not benefit Ireland more than a rigid adherence to a legal principle of neutrality?

If the latter, what is it about neutrality that they see as positive? There seem to be as many definitions of what ireland's neutrality is or should be as there are people!

Finally, what of those who regularly claim that Ireland is not really neutral? Do they want Ireland to join NATO, or do they mean "we want you to stop doing X"?

i want to stop hiding behind neutrality in order to facilitate (US) wars of aggression and for money.

So you'd be happy enough if the government came out and said "fair enough, we're not neutral, we're a US client state" and stepped up the facilitation of (US) wars of aggression?

no, i don't want to step up anything i just wish they wouldn't hide their current facilitation behind neutrality.

although i wouldn't object to them coming out and saying we're not neutral, i think that would progress peace not hinder it.

lostexpectation wrote:

no, i don't want to step up anything i just wish they wouldn't hide their current facilitation behind neutrality.

although i wouldn't object to them coming out and saying we're not neutral, i think that would progress peace not hinder it.

Well, that at least moves the discussion forward. However, if we're not neutral, what reason would we have for not allowing the US (alone, say) to pass whatever it liked without restriction through Shannon?

can anybody devine anything interesting out of these stats for ireland being 6th most peaceful

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/ireland/2008

doesn't seem like they took the us going through shannon into account either, so a redundant report.

well obviously ff and co are making a judgement call on it, and not depending on law at the moment, so one would hope they would have better judgement, but i don't think even labour or sf would stop these troops and hardware flights nor the rendition flights.

If we are not neutral, we have the option of becoming neutral. Then we would not have to let the US military move through Shannon. Or, you might say, not letting this type of thing be done would make us neutral.

I think we should bring our 7 men home from Afghanistan and express our disapproval of what is happening there, whether we define ourselves as neutral or not.