Shannon question reduces all the parties to flying in the face of reason

The Dáil debate showed that both sides of the House overlookedsome awkward facts, writes Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent

The Government had been expected yesterday to defend its decision to keep Shannon Airport open to United States military forces by emphasising Ireland's political and economic links to the US.

Only a fool would deny that such links exist, or that they have been critically important for the development of Ireland in recent years - particularly regarding peace efforts in Northern Ireland.

However, the degree to which the Government stood by the Bush administration, and emphasised on which side it believes Ireland's bread is buttered, surprised even those who agree, whether reluctantly or not, with its line.

Clearly, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the Tánaiste, Ms Harney, have gambled that the public would accept such an argument, if it was put across so firmly that no one could ever say afterwards that they were not warned.

Only time, and events in the second Gulf War, will tell if they are right.

However, a man bought by another rarely takes kindly to being reminded publicly that his loyalties have been so purchased.

Given the current climate in the United States, there is little doubt but that the Taoiseach is correct in his warning that Washington would interpret the closure of Shannon to US military flights as "a hostile position".

Such a move would create "a precedent which would run counter to our long-term national interests", Mr Ahern declared, to strong murmurs of support from the Fianna Fáil backbenches.

However, the Tánaiste went even further: "This is reality. Britain and the US are our close friends. They help us when we need them. We work closely with them. We won't deny them now when they need us."

She went on: "We may not agree with their judgment. But we cannot presume we know better about their security or are capable of making more moral choices than they are." Later, she brought the issue down to brass tacks.

Irish jobs in multinationals might not be threatened immediately, she pointed out, but their long-term future could be put in jeopardy if the US Congress changed tax repatriation rules.

Usually one of the best speakers in the Dáil, the Progressive Democrat leader was hesitant in her delivery, perhaps conscious that she heads a party that has quietly expressed but sharp divisions on this very issue.

Illustrating those PD doubts, Dún Laoghaire TD Ms Fiona O'Malley said she was "uneasy" about Shannon's continued use, while her colleague, and former Minister of State, Ms Liz O'Donnell, has already expressed similar doubts.

Internal divisions are to be found elsewhere, too. The former Fine Gael leader, Mr Michael Noonan, was noticeably absent, as were other FG TDs, when they were needed to vote against the Government's motion to keep Shannon open.

His successor, Mr Kenny has risked much by betting that Fine Gael voters will object more to unilateral invasion than they will to his strongly worded criticism of Washington.

"States must honour their international obligations. The choice we face is stark. Either we stand by and strengthen the international system and the rule of law or we invite anarchy," he said, in his strongest Dáil performance to date.

However, his declaration that the Irish/US relationship is not based "on economic subservience or international patronage" will strike a chord with many voters unhappy with the Government's stance.

Indeed, the Government's deliberate policy throughout the six-hour debate to avoid any criticism of Washington and London will frustrate many still furious that the UN weapons inspectors were not given more time.

Even though the Government sought to hijack last month's 100,000-strong peace rally in Dublin, the reality is that there is a strong anti-Bush feeling in Ireland - even if it should not be confused with anti-Americanism.

Instead, the Government's motion, which was passed easily, merely voiced its "deep regret" that the US-led coalition "finds it necessary to launch the campaign in the absence of agreement".

Despite producing the attorney general's advice, the Government's argument that Irish neutrality has not been changed by the decision to continue US access to Shannon and Irish airspace looks increasingly threadbare.

In the Gulf War in 1991, Shannon and overflights were cleared because there was a United Nations mandate, while NATO's intervention in Kosovo had not been preceded by such a damaging row at the UN Security Council.

The contradictions, though, were far from all being on the Government's side of the House.

Up to now, the majority of the Opposition has objected to Shannon's availability during any part of this crisis.

However, the US/UK force assembled in the Gulf is the only reason that any concessions at all were forthcoming from the Iraqi regime, as the chief UN weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix, has said.

Others adopt an à la carte approach to the UN. The Socialist Party TD, Mr Joe Higgins, condemned the launching of an invasion without a UN mandate.

Yet he also condemned UN sanctions imposed in the wake of the Gulf War.

Finishing up the debate yesterday, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, produced an extraordinary definition of neutrality, which would must surely see the drafters of the Hague Convention turning in their graves.

"The core of our neutrality, as I have said, lies in independence of judgment - in being able to make up our own minds about what is right for Ireland. That is the question facing all of us."

That is not a definition of neutrality, but one of self-interest. And self-interest is a perfectly justifiable yardstick in international relations.

But, please, let us call a spade a spade.