Green Spearheads pointed towards Shannon

by akira Mon Jan 13, 2003 01:10

john gormley and co. have really played this one badly, they arent going to protest our involvement in this war drive on the opinion that war is a capitalist's wet dream but on the ol' we'll be a terrorist target ploy, get real green's! criticise the pentagon, bush2, ahern et all for what they really are, mass murderers or at least complicit in its act!

it's not that hard

by Copirineo Mon Jan 13, 2003 09:08

Astonishing that the issue is reduced to 'we might be a terrorist target.' So a million dead Iraqis aren't a problem.

by Noel Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:17

OPPOSING A WAR ON IRAQ

POSITION PAPER

The Green Party is greatly concerned that the Irish Government will support military action against Iraq. This concern is based on the fact that the Government has facilitated both the Gulf War and the war against Afghanistan by allowing hundreds of military aircraft to use Shannon Airport and Irish airspace. The assistance given to the Afghan war was done without Dail approval and contrary to Article 28.3.1 of the Irish Constitution.

This concern is also based on the uncritical support given so far to President Bush's 'War on Terrorism'. While Ireland held the chairmanship of the UN Security Council, our Foreign Minister, Brian Cowen, indicated that Ireland, not only supported the war against Afghanistan, but would consider supporting an extension of that war to other countries. [When the US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, delivered a letter to the UN Security Council (October 8, 2001), stating "We may find that our self-defence requires further actions with respect to other organizations and other states", Brian Cowen stated that "as of now, the threat has been identified in Afghanistan. If there were evidence to suggest that other regimes were a threat to international peace and security, such action {military attacks} would be admissible" (Irish Times, October 9, 2001).]

It's vitally important that the Irish Government use its last few months on the UN Security Council to uphold the UN Charter and reassert some semblance of independence in Ireland's foreign policy.

The Green Party calls on the Irish Government to pursue the following policies in relation to Iraq in the UN Security Council

1. Oppose any UN Resolution enabling military action to be taken against Iraq.

The Irish Government should argue that such a Resolution would be contrary to the UN Charter. Iraq has not attacked anyone and is not threatening to attack anyone. International law does not allow for preemptive military strikes. Article 51 of the UN Charter outlines the terms under which a member-state may use force in self-defence, but this force cannot be used in the absence of an attack. There is no evidence of any Iraqi involvement in the September 11th atrocities.

The UN Charter does not authorize the use of force to achieve 'regime change' (merely another word for 'assassination') and any US/UN action based on targeting Saddam Hussein would be illegal.

If a UN Resolution authorizing force against Iraq does get approved in the Security Council, Ireland - aside from voting against such a resolution - should ensure that any such resolution states that a decision to go to war must be made by the Security Council itself, not unilaterally by the United States.

2. Work for Lifting of the Sanctions against Iraq.

The devastating effects of sanctions on the Iraqi people have been well documented. The present comprehensive economic sanctions have been targeting the entire population of Iraq. They have created a major economic and public health crisis in a country which, prior to the Gulf War, enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the region. UNICEF estimates that half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions and about 5000 people are dying every month. According to the World Food Programme, access to potable water, relative to 1990 levels, is only 50% in urban areas and 33% in rural areas and this scarcity of safe drinking water is spreading infectious disease. Sanctions have prevented the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure including the rebuilding of the electricity sector which powers pumps and other vital water treatment equipment.

· Ireland should be insisting on the lifting of comprehensive economic sanctions and shifting towards 'targeted' n sanctions. This is called for by such groups as Save the Children and reports for the UN sponsored by the Swiss and German Governments (the Interlaken Process and the Bonn-Berlin Processes). These indicate how sanctions could be better targeted on the arms trade and on the personal finances and travel of responsible leaders and elites. (Such targeted sanctions were imposed briefly by the Security Council in Resolution 1137 of November 1997, prohibiting international travel of listed leaders until full compliance with UNSCOM inspectors had been restored. This was followed by swift Iraqi compliance).

· Such targeted sanctions should have built-in time limits and clear criteria for lifting or modifying them;
· Regular humanitarian assessments must be part of any sanctions regime;
· Free trade (excepting military goods) should be re-established.
· Foreign investments in Iraq should be permitted.

3. Highlight the need for the removal of all Weapons of Mass Destruction from the Region.

Resolution 687 on Iraq in 1991 established UNSCOM to investigate and destroy Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and UNSCOM has since been replaced by a new monitoring, verification and inspection commission, UNMOVIC (Resolution 1284). That process must continue and the newest offer by Iraq to let the inspectors back into the country must be given a chance to succeed. Iraq must fully cooperate with the UN inspectors and must renounce all plans to buy, build or use weapons of mass destruction and related delivery systems.

Paragraph 14 of Resolution 687 has a broader focus than just Iraq, when it calls for the removal of weapons of mass destruction from the entire region. Ireland should highlight this part of the resolution and the double standards now applying in terms of weapons of mass destruction: Iraq is not alone in the region for having possessed such weapons.

This must be done in the context of a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, including the honouring of UN resolutions in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as well as instituting the close monitoring of arms sales, and establishment of both demilitarized and a nuclear-weapons free zones. In this context, Ireland should also call for the publication of the list of previous arms suppliers to Iraq, a document compiled by UNSCOM for the United Nations but so far suppressed by the UN Security Council.

Iraq must normalise relations with its neighbours, and relations between Iraq and the Arab League have improved. But Iraq must honour minority rights, including offering special status/autonomy to Kurdish areas, and improving relations with Kuwait.

4. Call for a total ban on the use of depleted uranium weapons.

Minister Cowen has refused to speak out against the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons, although being asked to do so in the Dail. The use of DU weapons by US and its allies in the Gulf Conflict of 1991 and in the Balkans have caused great controversy in terms of health and environmental effects. Medical personnel in Iraq have reported enormous increases in cancer, childhood leukemia, congenital birth defects and other chronic diseases never before seen in Iraq. The US Army released a study in 2001 showing a clear link between cancer DU pellets embedded in the bodies of rats and the US Veterans Association Research Advisory on Gulf War illnesses has called for more research.

5. Speak out against the unauthorized 'no fly' zones

Weekly bombings of Iraq by US and UK armed forced have continued over the past decade as part of the enforcement of an unauthorized 'no fly' zone. This zone comprises over 60% of Iraqi airspace. Scores of people have been killed. These bombings have no UN authorization and are counter to the UN Charter. Minister Cowen should be calling for this 'enforcement' to end.

Irish Involvement in any war against Iraq

· The Irish Government should voice its strong objections to using force against Iraq and vote against any UN Resolution which advocates force.

· Irish airspace and airport facilities should not be offered to any war effort against Iraq. Apart from objecting to any UN Resolution which authorizes force against Iraq, Ireland should make it clear that it is not obliged to assist any military operation which is not a UN operation

· If the Irish Government does offer the use of Shannon Airport to any war against Iraq, it must seek prior approval from the Dail. Article 28.3.1 of the Irish Constitution states that "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dail Eireann".

by Bystander Mon Jan 13, 2003 13:21

Good on you Noel - the Greens have obviously thought this one out. Unlike the two prats who posted before you.

The Greens are engaged in real politics, something alien to the many who insist on posting stupid comments to Indymedia that only serve to reveal their own ignorance, fickle grasp of reality etc.

One of the features of the many left groups (yes, I include the Greens in the left) who are working on the Shannon issue is the moderate tone, spot-on analysis that is, I believe, slowly but surely working to bring the public to a position whereby
the issue will be won.

Going around frothing at the mouth about Shannon, and expecting elected representatives to do same, will only be counter-productive. Sad to say, given the ceaseless propaganda we're subjected to in the mainstream media there are millions of people here who probably don't care that much about Iraqi civilians - by the playing the "possible terrorist target" angle the Greens may help some people make some kind of connection with what the Iraqis are about to suffer. The Iraqis are already targets of a terrorist threat, a threat which Shannon is servicing, if some people feel vulnerable here they may identify with what the Iraqis are going through.

by jedi on a tangent. Mon Jan 13, 2003 13:59

"frothing at the mouth" rarely wins friends.
Julius Caesar used to froth at the mouth but tht was epilepsy.
Throughout history many have frothed at the mouth.
Alexander the Great frothed at the mouth.
Christopher Daybell frothed at the mouth. Christopher Daybell was a most wonderful anarchist and papmphleteer and street selling poet who graced Dublin years ago. Good personal friend of myself he was under medication for the froth. I only saw him have a fit two times, it can be quite scary, so if you see anyone froth at the mouth put something between their teeth.
--sorry if this is a distractionary tangent.
--Shannon was offered by Ahern to the USA to assist Afghanistan in the "war against terrorism", Iraq is the next predicted phase of that "war". There have never been any indications that the end of an Iraq engagement would signal a return of Shannon to Irish neutrality. Rather judging by international strategic and psychological analysis of Bush2 we beleive that Shannon will go on being used by the USAF.
As such it is most certainly a target. Though the more worrying target for the Irish is THORP sellafield. Saddam does not have the capability nor has ever been proven to hold sway over those who have the capability to attack either Shannon or THORP. But the psychological analysis of Saddam holds that if not attacked he will not attack. The similar analysis of other "leaders" of extremist islamic groups is completely the opposite. They have shown no intention of not attacking, rather they have demonstrated a global reach capacity and scant regard for their own volunteers lives. They are "fanatic" and every week the USA gives them more reasons to recruit, train, arm, target and attack.
froth.

by Bystander Mon Jan 13, 2003 17:14

That's right "Jumping on the bandwagon" the least amount of publicity that the Shannon issue gets the more effective the campaign will be. What kind of fucking logic is that when we're dealing with a serious issue like stopping Shannon's role in the US axis of evil? Maybe you and your mates should try and get ownership rights on speaking about Shannon - then should the Greens, Labour or even our oul' mates in Fine Gael have the temerity to express an opinion on it you can get a gagging order to shut them up.

by Harry Pollitt - Anarchist Federation Mon Jan 13, 2003 18:00

Sorry I'm no fan of the Green Party, but rather than being interested all of a sudden Tim and Ed down in Shannon are members of the Green Party ....Tim was even their election candidate in Clare last summer...dunno anyone else whose put that much into this issue.
(and they are not the only members of the Green Party who have been working on this, but merely the most prominent).

by Harry Pollitt - Anarchist Federation Mon Jan 13, 2003 18:05

Might I add that the casulties inflicted on people for the crime of having the wrong religion, nationality and skin colour in, say, Bali, and the possibilty of the same in Shannon (or elsewhere in Ireland) is an anti-war issue.
Do hundreds of dead Aussies not count?
Against the "crusade against terror" and "the jihad against jews and crusaders".

by Copirineo Tue Jan 14, 2003 00:55

What has been happenning in Iraq for the last decade is an issue that doesn't belong to any political party. There is a huge struggle going on in the political establishment at the moment, of which the Greens are part, to vie for leadership on the issue, since it has emerged that there are very strong feelings amongst people against another war with Iraq. Playing on people's fear of a terrorist attack on Shannon is a lowest common denominator that does not do justice to the depth of feeling that exists. I have no doubt if the full horror of what has been going on in Iraq were presented before people there would be no question of allowing US military use Shannon.

by Niall O Brolchain - Green Party Wed Jan 15, 2003 19:10 niallob at esatclear dot ie Galway 091 596680

If all political parties in Ireland were against military planes landing in Shannon then we wouldn't need to have a peace camp there. Unfortunately they're not.
I have been involved in anti-war campaigns for a hell of a long time as have many other Greens.
Some contributors to this site it appears would prefer it if no political parties were to support them.
It would seem that they want to occupy the high moral ground and go down in a blaze of glorious defeat and righteous indignation.
Some of us have this mad dream of genuinely making the world a better place or at least trying to.