Bertie Ahern, the Irish prime minister (or taoiseach, as they say here; pronounced, roughly, tee-shuck) is angry about the letter about Iraq that made yesterday's news. The good news is this:

Sitting beside Czech Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla, Mr Ahern said he would have signed the letter if asked, but had not.
"There's an inconsistency in not inviting the others, there's a contradiction in that - I was not invited," he said during his short visit to Prague.
He challenged how some countries could criticise others for not showing solidarity with the US, but then not offer them the chance to express it through the letter.
Mr Ahern denied there was any contradiction between Ireland's neutrality and the US access to Shannon airport for its military build-up in the Middle East.

Military neutrality should not be interpreted to mean Ireland should be "politically neutered as a country," a junior minister told the Dail yesterday.
Willie O'Dea was speaking during a debate on a motion by the Technical Opposition Group - including independents, Greens and Sinn Fein - calling on the Government to withdraw landing and refuelling facilities at Shannon for aircraft carrying US military.
Historically we have been neutral and that remains the position, Mr O'Dea said.
Putting the US, with its many failings and flaws, and the UN on one side and the blood-stained dictatorship of Iraq on the other, he was unashamedly on America's side, he added.
. . .
He would not go down the road of blind, virulent, unthinking anti-Americanism, "which puts the people in the White House, however flawed, almost on the same moral plain as the butcher of Baghdad and causes people almost to make excuses for Saddam's barbarism, the malevolence of al-Qa'ida or the sheer evil of the Taliban."

I would point out that denying refueling rights is the act of an enemy belligerent, not a neutral, so SF is calling for Ireland to actively support Iraq. Neutrals traditionally have allowed all parties to a conflict the authority to enter for 24 hours before being either expelled or arrested.

You can't trust the Irish on any kind of military issue - they were neutral during WWII.

Yeah, and they were about as "neutral" as Spain, too: Eamon de Valera was a pretty strong Nazi sympathizer.

de Valera, as President of the Republic, signed a book of condolences at the German Embassy on Hitler's death!

DeValera was no "Nazi Sympathiser", in fact the signing of the book of condolences was more of a "fig leaf" to maintain the appearance of neutrality.

Irish "Neutrality" was always based on pragmatism rather than some abstract principle. At the time of WW2 official Irish policy was that the UK "occupied" part of our country, to declare publicly for Allied forces would imply (or even admit) that we accepted that the north was part of the UK. Plus our country was impoverished and barely capable of defending itself let alone helping to liberate europe. There was co-operation with the UK but we remained "officially" neutral.

This is where our neutrality came from originally. I personally wish that we were not neutral but what irks me most of all is the preening assumption that being neutral is more "moral" than taking sides when the opposite is the case.

I can certainly understand the difficulties with England making it impossible politically for Ireland to enter the war formally; after all, the United States also remained officially neutral for some time. It is also my understanding that RAF pilots who crashed in Ireland were repatriated while Luftwaffe pilots were detained. Still, on the other side is Ireland's refusal to allow the US Navy to base anti-submarine patrol planes in Ireland during the Battle of the Atlantic. There's still some soreness about that.

There is a very deep bond between Ireland and the United States, and though Ireland has changed much in the last two decades, I think the bond is still there.

Ireland won't join the war, for that's not her way. But I suspect a great many Irish surnames will be in the thickest part of it.

"the tweedledee and tweedledum of scum"

You rock.

Now I see my error. I should have declared my personal "military neutrality" before they shipped my ass off to Vietnam in 1967. ;)

An account by Conor Cruise O'Brien of DeValera's trip to the German Embassy to "express condolences" for the death of Adolf Hitler might be enlightening (especially as the Cruiser LOATHES Irish nationalists and would probably be staked out on an anthill rather than cut them a break).

As it happened, Ireland was having a presidential election that spring. Dev was in a swivet because the Fianna Fail candidate was trailing badly - until Hitler very conveniently offed himself and gave Dev the perfect opportunity to goad Winston Churchill into a real hissy fit by making his condolence call and appearing to sympathize with the Germans. Churchill (an anti-Irish bigot nonpareil) very readily obliged, virulently attacking the Irish government for Nazi sympathies. The Irish electorate reacted to the attack by sending Dev's guy to the big house in Phoenix Park. This incident was a lot less about international politics and a lot more about all politics being local than most people realize.

well said Terry, I concur wholly with your analysis and cruiser's account, somewhat absolving Dev of the pro-nazi stance attributed here by some, is like rodney king giving an honest assesment of the good work often done by LA's finest.
Emily, I really dont know what you're on about, but that ignorant kind of tone, avec typical insular generic colloquialism is what's giving 'you guys' a bad press here. You have to understand that what we really want here is to NOT be a part of US murdering of innocent Iraqi's.
Not an enemy belligerent, just an unwilling belligerent accomplice.
mise,
Ciaran

I mean, of course

'not an enemy belligerent, just unwilling to be a belligerent accomplice'

C>

Why assume Emily is American, I also think AtlanticBlog "rocks" for calling SF and the Greens "Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Scum" and I'm Irish.

Also I wouldn't presume to speak for all of my compatriots but I don't think anyone wants to be a part of murdering innocent iraqis just some of us feel that the best way to stop the "murdering of innocent iraqis" is to change, by force if neccessary, the present regime which is actually "murdering innocent iraqis" everyday.

oh right and by changing them through force, 'if necessary' (according to whom?), will also lead to future generations suffering like the are in vietnam then that will be fine i presume.

If it is all to stop the murdering o innocent Iraqis then why are the current embargos that are assisting in murdeing these innocents, being lifted?

WHy was afghanistan and its specific horrific treatment of women only brought up when Bin Laden was the flabour of the month enemy? WHy, if they knew all about the taliban's treatment of women, like they have known of saddam's treatment of his people,did they not act before something happened to them?

As with WWII the us is only reacting to circumstance when their own interests are threatened.

This is not intended to be anti-american, as im sure youll hurl at me, its a genuine view of the poor humanitarian excuses it comes up with to justify over due actions that more often than not 'coincide' with their own interests.

Oh and Frank would you type 'you rock'? :)
dont know many people here in Dublin that would! maybe its me!

oh and i think SF and the greens rock!
C>

Ok, I realise that it's not fair to turn the comments section of a weblog into a long running debate so I'll try and avoid baiting you.

I concede that the term "you rock" is not used regularly here but.....

....... not everyone is a big fan of both "green" parties, I'm not affiliated to any party but I would vote for (almost) any candidates that stood a good chance of beating SF or Greens. I would find myself diametrically opposed to both parties on almost every single issue but also from a utilitarian point of view both of their sets of policies would have a disastrous effect on the country and the economy. You feel differently, that's ok, we live in a democracy.

On the other issues: I never said that the proposed Iraqi war is "about" liberating Iraq, that is just a happy consequence. In the same way as the liberation of Afghanistan, of whose Taliban dictatorship the world knew plenty before 9/11.

The point here is that the US is acting in it's own interest, to do what it can to make sure there will never be another 9/11. It has the right to do so and in doing so will also free the Iraqi people from a vicious despot. It may well be a consequence of this war that democracy spreads to surrounding countries, that is surely to be wished for?

i wish neither to turn this into a running battle!
BUt disregarding the obvious political differences here I think we both agreed on one thing - that the US is operating out of self-interest.

The two points id like to make on that is they should not try to portray it as anytthing else, which they do (some sort of liberation of the oppressed iraqi people). ANd secondly, WHY should we, support them when they clearly are acting in selfish intent, and will use whatever force necessary, including the murdering of innocents they claim to be assisting?

Is the US allowed to be some sort of machiavellian state in pursuit of its global control dream?

I take it we disagree, but this thread was about Irish assistance or otherwise. I firmly believe if you believe the uS are acting selfishly and murdering innocents, then they should be not allowed to use Ireland. Regardless of politicking.

C>

i wish neither to turn this into a running battle!
BUt disregarding the obvious political differences here I think we both agreed on one thing - that the US is operating out of self-interest.

The two points id like to make on that is they should not try to portray it as anytthing else, which they do (some sort of liberation of the oppressed iraqi people). ANd secondly, WHY should we, support them when they clearly are acting in selfish intent, and will use whatever force necessary, including the murdering of innocents they claim to be assisting?

Is the US allowed to be some sort of machiavellian state in pursuit of its global control dream?

I take it we disagree, but this thread was about Irish assistance or otherwise. I firmly believe if you believe the uS are acting selfishly and murdering innocents, then they should be not allowed to use Ireland. Regardless of politicking.

C>

Ciaran,

I think that there's a contradiction in the usual logic about US intervention that you seem to be caught in.

On the one hand, you are unhappy that the US didn't involve itself in Afghanistan until after the Taliban connection to 9/11 was established. On the other, people like you don't wish the US to be involved in the internal affairs of other countries.

Now, which do you prefer: the US marching into country after country because we don't like their internal arrangements, or the US intervening when the government of a particular country commits or facilitates aggression against us? The latter is the rationale for our invading Afghanistan. The former idea seems to be what many Europeans object to concerning our waging war on Iraq (or more exactly, on Saddam Hussein).

Believe me, there was plenty of protest here against the Taliban before 9/11. But while the US is the friend of liberty in all countries, we are in the final analysis the guarantor only of our own. And we have the right to make a preemptive strike when an enemy has given and continues to give every sign of moving to harm us and our allies.

One should also be aware that it's NOT just the US doing this. Several former Eastern Bloc countries offered us support today, in addition to the eight whose leaders signed the WSJ column last week.

Best,
Terry

you wrote

"On the one hand, you are unhappy that the US didn't involve itself in Afghanistan until after the Taliban connection to 9/11 was established. On the other, people like you don't wish the US to be involved in the internal affairs of other countries."

What I am saying is that I completely disapprove of the use of the terrible record of the taliban as some sort of justification to attack when in truth its the selfish reasons that are the real reasons.

You speak of anti-taliban protests in the us pre 9/11, my point is that the govenment not once attempted to go to afghanistan then, but id when they were attacked. I detest the use of 'taliban evil' terms as an excues to justify the attacks on afghanistan post 9/11, when thi 'evil' was not enough to make the government move before.

Its not that i think they should, BUT the hypocrisy is disgusting and appealing to emotional lowest common denominators of the internationally ignorant us populace. (in general)

C>

But Ciaran -

Every American with a three-digit IQ knew that the primary reason for attacking the Taliban was their connection to Bin Laden. The other reasons were just icing on the cake as far as practically everyone here was concerned. I suspect that most other countries would paint their opponents in the worst light possible regardless of their real motivations for making war.

Again, we cannot and will not go to war simply because a particular regime is distasteful to us. At the same time, I cannot think of any nation that would not do so if it considered that regime to be a direct threat to its just interests.