Either we define and protect neutrality or we abandon it. We cannot afford to continue with the current hypocritical pretence, writes John Gormley
According to the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, the decision to continue the Shannon military stopover, even in the absence of a second UN resolution, is compatible with our traditional neutrality.
He was backed in his contention by Brian Cowen and by the Government Chief Whip, Mary Hanafin, who referred to our stance as a "benign" neutrality. For benign, read "opportunistic" or perhaps "flexible".
Last week's debate, and the follow-up article in The Irish Times, give an insight into Fianna Fáil's success and longevity as a political entity. Survival, Darwin told us, is not dependent on strength but on adaptability.
Fianna Fáil have always exhibited chameleon-like qualities, and this is particularly so of their approach to neutrality. Under de Valera, we were neutral on the side of the Allies, but just to be sure that the Germans' nose was not out of joint he sympathised with them on the death of Hitler.
Lemass, on the other hand, was no great fan of neutrality and would have joined a military alliance, given the right circumstances.
Mr Ahern, it would appear, has inherited much of the genetic material of his predecessors and evolved into a unique species of fence-sitter.
While normal people find long periods of sitting on a fence uncomfortable and even painful, Mr Ahern has adapted perfectly, to the extent that getting off to make a decision is his difficulty.
His argument that he regretted that Ireland was not on the Security Council to make a decision on the second resolution is laughable. Most observers agree that there was a very audible sigh of relief from Iveagh House when our term on the Security Council ended. Unlike Chile or Mexico, we were not faced with a very difficult decision.
This marked the beginning of the Government's wait-and-see approach and revealed the first crack in its neutrality façade. Initially, Brian Cowen indicated he had full confidence in Dr Hans Blix and the inspectors, though he stopped short of backing the motion asking for more time for inspections.
That would have been taking sides, and as a dedicated fence-sitter himself would not have suited him. When pressed continually on this issue, he replied that the Government would await the decision of the Security Council and was hoping for consensus on the issue.
However, when George W. Bush included Ireland in the coalition of the willing in the White House, the Taoiseach, who stood beside him, did not demur. We had taken sides, without stating it publicly. This was later confirmed when the Taoiseach stated that he wanted a second resolution.
As the only resolution on the table was from the US, Britain and Spain, he was effectively saying that he backed war. A second resolution would have got him off the hook and made the decision on the continuation of the Shannon military stopover relatively easy.
Alas, it wasn't to be, and life became very complicated for the Government. How could it get out of this one?
Well, it tried to present some coherent arguments, but in reality, it came down to bluff, bluster and a lot of brass neck. They quoted Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General, who claimed that military action was not illegal, despite the fact that Tony Blair himself had said that Resolution 1441 did not provide an "automatic trigger" for war. They also threw in a legal opinion from our own Attorney General, Mr Rory Brady, which Michael D. Higgins accurately described as "off the wall".
Significantly, Mr Brady did not address Article 29.2 of our Constitution, which commits the State to "the pacific settlement of international disputes".
Nor did the Taoiseach attempt at any stage to explain how a pre-emptive strike could be compatible with the fundamental principles of international law.
Instead, he tried to persuade a sceptical public that by continuing to allow Shannon to be used as a stopover, Ireland was not actually "participating" in a war as defined under Article 28.3 of our Constitution.
The distinction between participating and facilitating is at best unclear and at worst, according to many distinguished anti-war lawyers, entirely bogus.
Finally, the Taoiseach and Brian Cowen failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the very different approach of other neutral and non-aligned states, which have not permitted overflights or landings. The Government also attempted to divert attention away from its own position by claiming that France and Germany, the two states most opposed to the impending war, were in fact allowing overflights and refuelling. Both countries are, of course, members of NATO.
We were also informed in the Dáil debate that the use of Shannon by the American military had a 50-year tradition and that any departure from this policy would be interpreted as a "hostile act", no less. It's strange, then, that absolutely no mention had been made of this important policy before it became evident that the second UN resolution might not be possible.
So where does all of this posturing leave Irish neutrality?
To put it bluntly, we're not neutral, not even "militarily neutral", to use the Government's own term. It is scarcely arguable that we are even non-aligned, i.e. not members of a military alliance.
We are now firmly in the NATO camp without actually being fully fledged members. We have joined NATO's Partnership for Peace, without a referendum. Yet according to Mr Ahern, PfP "has nothing to do with NATO".
During the second Nice Referendum the Taoiseach also assured the public that the proposed Government amendment would enshrine neutrality in the Constitution. At the time, we argued that the proposed constitutional amendment simply required the Government to hold a referendum before we joined a European Common Defence; it did not exclude us from joining NATO without a referendum.
Be in no doubt that this is the direction in which we and the EU are heading. Only a number of weeks ago Mr Gustaf Hagglund, chairman of the EU Military Committee, confirmed that NATO and ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) would merge within a decade. Last week the European Council confirmed that it wished to strengthen the transatlantic partnership.
The Franco-German alliance would undoubtedly prefer to pursue a more independent European common defence, but "old" Europe is currently outnumbered by the NATOists.
And if we had been faced with a second resolution in the Security Council does anyone seriously believe we would have sided with the French and Germans? Realpolitik would have dictated otherwise.
Yet democracy demands we debate this important issue openly and fully. Either we define and protect neutrality or choose to abandon it. We cannot afford to continue with the current hypocritical pretence.
• John Gormley TD is the Green Party chairman and spokesman on foreign affairs