Antonov plane cargo raises new questions about Irish neutrality
A giant Antonov 124 left Amberley air base in Australia, carrying M777 howitzers and Bushmasters bound for Ukraine, stopping in Canada before landing at Shannon.
Yet again questions are being asked about the use of Shannon Airport and its implications for Irish neutrality following revelations about the cargo contained in an Antonov AN-124 which landed there in early May.
The airport has been used as a stopover and fuelling stop for US military for nearly 20 years, with tens of thousands of troops transiting through yearly.
In 2020, around 75,000 troops used the airport. In 2019 the figure was 93,852 and in 2018 it was 86,653.
The use of the airport in America's "War on Terror" has proved a thorn in the side of Irish neutrality, regardless of views on that particular war. However, with Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine a new issue is raised. There are surely few who doubt Ukraine's right to fight back against an invasionary force, nor the right of international allies to arm that effort.
Here in Ireland though, that raises the question of how much support we are willing to offer. This is a needle Ireland has had to thread since the beginning of the war in Ukraine when the Government announced this country was giving around €9m to an EU fund, but said we would not put that money towards "lethal" supplies.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin told reporters that the money was to be used for personal protective equipment, medical supplies, and fuel.
He insisted the unprecedented use of the European Peace Facility for weapons is not a breach of Ireland's military neutrality. The European Commission's plan saw around €500m used to help buy air-defence systems, anti-tank weapons, ammunition, and other military equipment for Ukraine’s armed forces.
Mr Martin said Ireland had been given a right to "constructive abstention" from the facility.
"When we signed up to the European Peace Facility, Ireland sought an option in respect of having the capacity to have constructive abstention in terms of the use of that facility for lethal force or for the sending of lethal weapons," he said.
Asked about the difference between funding the fuel for a tank instead of a tank itself, Mr Martin said "you can argue one way or the other" but "the bottom line is we're not funding the tanks".
Despite what many commentators will say, and have said, public support for military neutrality in Ireland is over two thirds and only a quarter of people favour ditching it.
However, the question remains as to whether allowing refuelling or transport of troops or weapons is a breach of neutrality in spirit or letter.
For some, the spirit is largely taken on a case-by-case basis. They can look at the US interventions in the Middle East and say that they are not justified but find it hard to quibble with arming a vastly outgunned Ukrainian army. And that is both logically and morally reasonable.
For some though, the case is more cut and dried: Ireland should not be involved in any military conflict, one way or the other.
Writing in this paper in March, Dr Edward Horgan spelled out the idea of "active neutrality".
"Humanitarian reasons for Irish neutrality should be a priority for the Irish people given our history of occupation by a foreign power that committed crimes against humanity against our people, forcing millions of Irish people to seek refuge in other countries," he said.
"The existential reasons for neutrality are highlighted by the risks of nuclear accident or nuclear war due to the present conflict in Ukraine and the possession of and threats to use nuclear weapons by at least nine countries.
"Promoting peace by peaceful means using our positive active neutrality is the only sensible and practical policy for Ireland into the future."
For others, the Taoiseach included, the war in Ukraine raises questions of whether Ireland can remain neutral in a smaller, more closely-aligned world.
Mr Martin said in March that once the immediate humanitarian issue has receded, a national conversation could be had about neutrality.
"I don't believe in a knee-jerk response to this in terms of the broader non-alignment issue, but... when this war ends, we should create a forum for a reflection on that, because the world has changed," he said.
"Russia has changed the multilateral order by this war. We've witnessed the growth in cyberattacks, the growth also in terrorist organisations. The whole situation has changed so much that we do need to reflect on all of that."
However, while that reflection remains a future concern, we must have an immediate conversation about what is to be done in Shannon.
After 20 years, it is time to grasp the nettle of the airport's use by and for foreign militaries. We are capable of such a conversation and it is imperative that we decide that a have-your-cake approach to military neutrality, in which friendly forces are allowed access to the airport, is not tenable any longer.
Whether this particular plane did or did not carry munitions — we know that it did not have an exemption to do so — the fact that a flight coming from a foreign military base and flying to what is effectively a staging area for a months-long war was not at least subject of a cursory check by Irish authorities raises questions.
This plane sat on the tarmac at Shannon for 24 hours and not one of the relevant authorities felt compelled to carry out a check, the Department of Transport says.
We know that this plane left Amberley Air Base in Australia, flew through Japan to Anchorage in Alaska, and stopped twice in Canada before landing in Shannon.
It is possible that Irish authorities assumed that the governments of Japan, America, and Canada would have ensured the cargo was all ok.
However, even that displays a lack of curiosity at best on behalf of authorities and begs the question of whether a blind eye is being turned.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
