Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Don’t give in to terror
Read more about: Clare, Foreign Affairs, Green Party
Giving in to terrorism seems to be the mantra down in Green Central:
Deputy Gormley said, “Security experts agree that this latest terror threat is ominous and should be taken very seriously. Stepping up security to the required level could prove to be extremely expensive and, as we know from the London bombings, does not always work. It would be far wiser if the Irish government addressed the root causes of this threat: we are a high value target for terrorists because of our support for the US in Iraq.
Whatever about the use of Shannon Sirport and, yes, there are plenty of good arguments in favour of withdrawing support, but surely giving in to terrorist should not be one. Would we have done this when we faced actually terrorist threats from the PIRA and various loyalist paramilitaries? If, after the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, someone said,
Stepping up security to the required level could prove to be extremely expensive and, as we know from the London bombings, does not always work. It would be far wiser if the Irish government addressed the root causes of this threat: that we support the Nationalist parties.
What would people have said? Disagree with the use of Shannon on moral grounds, disagree on political reasons, don’t disagree because of terrorism.
This so-called threat (the one where the cleric didn’t even know what airport he was talking about) should not be a distraction from the reality of the situation; the Government are allowing the use of Shannon on purely financial grounds and have made no bones about that… they’ve said it brings in plenty of money for the airport and it’s obvious they’re (for some reason) afraid that denying access would lead to the likes of Google pulling out of the country… companies aren’t here because of our “we love America” bumper stickers, it’s the friendly tax situation, educated population and location that’s appealing.
No, we shouldn’t deny US troops access based on this “threat”, and I’m not sure what security experts have told the Greens that this should be taken with any seriousness, but there are plenty of other reasons alright.
On the other hand, US troops remain in Iraq under the effective mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 1546 which recognized the democratically elected government of Iraq which then retained the US/UK presence in Iraq as a stabilisation force.
So on the face of it if we denied access to Shannon wouldn’t we effectively be following a course of non-cooperation with the UN?
Now of course I’m not blind to the specifics of the situation, and I have little time for the fact that it’s a US force, rather than as it should have been from the beginning a regional fully mandated UN force (unfortunately an impossiblity due to the mess at the UN during 2002/3 largely, but not exclusively, the responsibility of the US) but it strikes me that this is a clear example of how a ‘neutral’ course might actually bring us into conflict so to speak with the global legitimising authority.
Greens criticised for pragmatism shocker!
Gormley is just pointing out one more reason not to allow US troops through Shannon. Obviously if we all supported this war as a wonderful moral enterprise then standing firm against threats of terror would be the right thing to do. However, as even Bertie has said, we don’t support the war, so why should we make ourselves a target?
I don’t see anything in the quotes in your post about ‘giving into terrorism’, I see a call for the government to address the root causes of the threat of terrorism, and a fairly logical assesment of what the root cause for the immediate threat is.
This threat just highlights the situation in Shannon, and the fact that a threat has been made should be no reason to continue to allow what many would consider a shameful situation.