An open letter: NEUTRALITY vs The RISKS of supporting the UKUSA war


I would like to pose a question about the government's role in granting flyover and stopover facilities to US troops en route to a possible unprovoked attack on Iraq. It is simply this: how much analysis and consideration of the possible risks has taken place? On the one hand, is the government only too happy to oblige its friend in an unthinking way, or has an analysis of the situation been made before selling out our neutrality? In particular, I would like to see the following RISKS put to the government, and have them give a public rationale justifying their support of the US in this instance, and to explain what contingencies they have put in place to mitigate possible harm to the nation and its populace. CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS I. vaccinations, medicines given to outgoing troops Outside of a small group of strategists in the US armed forces, nobody has much idea of what sort of biological weapons may be used in Iraq. We have even less information about what sort of vaccines and prophylactics are being given to US troops before they leave US soil. It is safe to assume that the details will be kept quiet as a matter of "national security", and that the normal rules for testing of medicines may be waived by the US government as a matter of "expediency". There are two main RISKS of this situation. First, if vaccinations are being given, we have no guarantee that these will be inactive. Indeed, given the lack of public accountability and the pressure to produce vaccines quickly, it is possible that a very small percentage of people vaccinated will go on to develop a live, contagious form of the virus from which the vaccine was derived. If the military decides to vaccinate against Smallpox, we only need one or two vaccinated people to incubate the live form for us to have a pandemic on our hands. And here can hardly be a worse place to contain such an outbreak than at a busy airport. Thus, though the likelihood of the vaccine reverting to its live form is very small, the consequences of it happening even once would be catastrophic. Second, there are the risks of trans-shipment of unapproved drugs and medicines, and of them becoming lost or mislaid, accidentally released or spilled, or mixed up with regular drugs, supplies or cargoes. We know nothing about the toxicity or effects of these agents, and in the event that they are inadvertently released, doctors will be at a loss as to how to treat those people that are poisoned by them. We can expect a similar scenario to that in the seige by Chechen secessionists in Moscow: official silence, and even outright denial that the public needs to know anything, while innocents die. Indeed, the US and UK are still denying that the original "Gulf War Syndrome" actually existed, despite strong arguments that vaccinations and other shots given to the troops was to blame. II. Returning troops and equipment If the Bush-Blair line is to be believed, Iraq certainly has Chemical and Biological weapons, and he will use them in any coming conflict. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, although the failure of UN weapons inspectors to find any sign of them *at all* suggests that the official line is more propaganda than truth. However, If we are to follow the logic given to us by Bush and Blair, then the failure to find any WMD is immaterial: Saddam has just hidden them too well. So while the chance of contagion is quite small on the trip from the US to Iraq, it is *guaranteed* that there will be some contamination carried back on the return trip. This could include such things as used hazmat suits, troops infected with viral agents, or radioactive dust and debris caused by depleted uranium shells or Bush's proposed "Bunker Buster" nukes. It is hard to quantify how severe a problem this will pose, but there at least two major RISKS that need to be looked at here, both of which re-inforce each other and contribute to First, there is the risk that the US will not inform us of any potential for problems, or to underreport and play down the dangers. Today (Jan 13th), we have found out that US troops *are* bringing firearms with them as they pass through Shannon. Did US officials volunteer that information? Hardly. Second, there is the risk that Irish government officials will be ill-equipped to monitor for contamination, or will carry it out in a lackadaisical manner. In the same news report above, we were told that Irish authorities are not even checking these planes. We are already fulfilling our role of "useful idiots" for the US, and this will not change unless the government's policies are challenged. THREATS TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST FROM WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST The threats here are more difficult to forsee, but should be considered nonetheless. The degree and speed by which these symptoms manifest will be directly related to events in and surrounding the Middle East. I Erosion of our neutral, nuclear-free status We do not need to look far for signs that this is already happening. Our government has already given the US the use of our airspace and facilities. We have not made similar offers to the Iraqi people (who, suffering under punitive embargoes, would no doubt be delighted to simply have shipments of food, clothing and medical supplies). Neither has anyone in the government objected when George Bush threatened to use nuclear weapons in Iraq. For a country that has until now been so well respected in the international arena, these are shameful omissions. II Sympathetic Reprisals against "friends" of the US Ireland is at particular risk from reprisals from groups that are violently opposed to US meddling, aggression and terrorism in the Middle East. This is not because there are "terror cells" working in this country, but because we are the weakest link in the chain of American imperialism. The more this government, and through the guilt of association, the people of this country, are seen to be in one-sided support of the warmongers, the more we will be tarred with the same brush. This is simple common sense: the friend of my enemy is my enemy. I do not mean to suggest that reprisals will take the form of terror attacks in this country. Rather, a continuum of responses are likely, ranging from protests and disruptions, through sabotage and civil disorder up to outright conflict. The more the fire of war spreads in the Middle East, the more precarious our position. III Losses in the areas of Human Rights and Free Democratic Process A society faced with such symptoms of dis-ease acts like a pressure cooker. To deal with increasing internal radicalisation and external fires, the lid gets screwed on tighter. Freedoms are curtailed, new offences put in the books, and tolerance of different views and "outsiders" diminishes. The government increasingly makes decisions without public debate, and, then, even without public accountability. I don't think it's unfair to say that this latter situation is what the US has been progressing steadily towards since the September 11th attacks. To buy into the US's crusade pushes us along the same path. Loss of neutrality leads to radicalisation, and radicalisation leads to a state more concerned with maintaining power than being "by the people, of the people, for the people". It is this prospect, that as a nation we will be swept up in the madness of paranoid control freaks, that really makes me want to speak out and denounce it for what it is: a madness, a disease, a lie. That's why I'm asking these questions, and why I want to know how our government has analysed the issues and why they have decided to lay down our nutrality with no debate. If this government still professes that neutrality is a fundamental aspect of our statehood, I would be pleased to hear this espoused not just in their words, but also to see them prove it by way of good example. Either support both sides equally, or support the middle way of peace.

Created By: Declan Malone