Editorial: Documents tie US and UK into torture

The documents which we publish in this issue of Village from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office disclose the complicity of both the British and American governments in the use of torture in Uzbekistan. The documents reveal a quite cynical disposition on the part of the British authorities, claiming that because the name of the tortured prisoner was not included in the documents related to his/her interrogation, torture could not be proved. The inference is that it was therefore OK to use information obtained under torture.

As far as Ireland is concerned, it shows a disposition on the part of Britain and America to go along with torture and to use information obtained under torture, which in no way fits with the assurances ostensibly given by the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice on the issue of torture.

"Ostensibly", because the assurances were carefully crafted and, clearly, were based on a new definition or understanding of torture on the part of the US authorities, one which defies the understanding of normal human people everywhere: apparently it is no longer torture to inflict pain on a detainee, provided the detainee is not killed in the process or almost killed.

The eagerness on the part of the Irish Government, notably through Bertie Ahern and Dermot Ahern, to go along with the Americans on this, as on everything else, is dismaying. They accept assurances on their face value, even though it is clear something other than the face value is intended.

The Irish Commission on Human Rights has recently called on the Government to ensure Shannon was not being used by American planes used in the torture and kidnapping ventures by boarding the planes when they come through the airport. This suggestion is being vigorously resisted. Indeed, the Government minister charged primarily with upholding the rule of law in Ireland, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, has signaled that the Irish authorities "cannot" board such planes. If this is so, then it is so on the basis of some agreement that has been entered into by the Irish Government with the United States, about which the Irish public knows nothing. If that is so, it is outrageous.

More likely, there is merely an informal understanding between the two governments that the Irish authorities will not pry unduly (actually, not pry at all) into what is going on in relation to the aircraft going through Shannon. It is bad enough that we allow Shannon to be used in the pursuit of a war that we ourselves, through our representative at the United Nations, said was illegal, but to allow an airport and our airspace in the criminal kidnapping and torturing of suspects is shameful.

Michael McDowell has trumpeted his commitment to upholding the State against subversion, but what if another state is using our territory and airspace to subvert the rule of law, to subvert humanitarian law and conventions?

Counties all over the world have stood up to the United States, so what is the problem for Ireland doing so, even in the most modest way? America's two closest neighbours, Canada and Mexico, staunchly opposed the US demands on the Security Council for a resolution specifically authorising the invasion of Iraq. So did countries such as Chile, perhaps America's closest ally on the American continents; and Turkey, which is hugely reliant on American support, but would not allow its territory to be used by the American army in the invasion of Iraq.

So what is the problem with Ireland simply telling the Americans, we will have inspections (or even occasional inspections) of airplanes coming through Shannon so that we can assure the Irish public such planes are not being used for purposes of which the Irish public would disapprove?

Are we really so subject that we could not exercise even that modicum of independence?

We are going to commemorate this year the opening shots in the war for Irish independence in 1916. Was there really a point to independence if we are now so hopelessly dependent that we cannot even inspect airplanes coming through one of our airports, when we have reason to suspect those aircraft might be being used for illegal purposes?

There is clear evidence of US and UK complicity in torture. We can no longer, in the light of this evidence, rely on US assurances on that score. Our self-esteem as an independent nation surely demands we take assertive independent action. If not that, then the human and civil rights of our fellow human beings demand it.

vincent browne