The use of Shannon airport by charter planes carrying US troops preparing for a possible attack on Iraq has focused Irish debate on the ethics of such a war and the implications for Ireland's policy of military neutrality.
Political and legal judgments are closely intertwined in this issue. Views about Iraq and how to define neutrality tend to co-vary, with attitudes towards one being used to justify the other. A better way to approach the Shannon issue is to keep them as separate as possible.
The build-up of troops around Iraq is taking place under the terms of the unanimous Security Council Resolution 1441, passed with Ireland voting in favour. This gives Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with arms inspections and to disarm any weapons of mass destruction it possesses, under the threat that "all necessary means" will be authorised by the UN to enforce its mandate. Troop deployment is part of the pressure mounted on Iraq to comply; it is very much to be hoped it will succeed short of war. That depends largely upon Iraq's willingness to accede.
The US troop deployment carries the legitimacy of international law so long as it takes place under a UN mandate. There is, of course, a huge debate as to whether the US will continue to accept that. Or will it go ahead with an attack on Iraq even if that is not explicitly mandated by another Security Council resolution?
The legal and political acceptability of US troop movements through Shannon will depend greatly on how this issue is resolved in coming weeks. Up to now these flights are not against international law - but they are a valid focus of protest and debate.
Politically it is understandable that the Government should judge them acceptable also under Irish law. As the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, has said, "we have a lot of contact with America, a lot of business with America, we have a lot of people in this country who depend on America for their jobs." He also argued that there is "no such thing...as complete military neutrality."
Ireland's neutrality policy, unlike Switzerland's but like Sweden's, Finland's and Austria's, recognises the over-riding legal authority of the UN to take military action in defence of collective security. Neutrality is defined by the Government minimalistically, as non-participation in a military alliance. This is seen as compatible with deepening solidarity over security and common values within the European Union. Many of those protesting about the possibility of a war over Iraq define neutrality more substantively, as a means of asserting national sovereignty in the face of EU integration or US power.
These debates overlap with the one over Iraq. The Shannon issue clearly frames them. It should help to clarify attitudes on a complex and confusing subject.