Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 19 May 2004
9 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the conditions laid down for the use by foreign military aircraft of Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel; if his attention has been drawn to a recent incident in which a US military aircraft at Baldonnel flew a skull and crossbones flag; his views on whether this is appropriate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13389/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra105 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has raised with the US authorities the flying of a skull and crossbones flag on aircraft using Irish facilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14503/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 105 together.
I refer the Deputies to my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 212 of 6 April 2004 on this matter. In that reply I stated that the use of Shannon Airport by the US military is a long-standing practice, which has been in place for a number of decades. In this regard, the carriage of US troops by civilian aircraft carriers takes place in accordance with the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973, as amended in 1989, for which the Minister for Transport has responsibility. This legislation is concerned specifically with the carriage of munitions of war and weapons and allows the Minister for Transport to issue exemptions for the carriage of such goods. There is no requirement for the identification of any specific military unit being transported.
Permission for foreign military aircraft to land, which is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, must take place in accordance with the provisions of the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, and is normally granted on certain conditions, including that the aircraft be unarmed and not carrying arms, ammunition and explosives.
Records show that the landing of the C-130 at Baldonnel military aerodrome in late March took place in conformity with these criteria. The flying of the Jolly Roger by that aircraft, which is an informal flag with no particular status, was raised with the United States Embassy. The embassy confirmed that the hoisting of unauthorised flags on US military aircraft is not permitted. Any further action would be a matter for the US authorities and we have made it clear we do not want to see a repeat.
The question remains as to why this airplane landed at Baldonnel rather than Shannon. Apparently it was suggested that it was flying between a US airbase and Sicily. When it happened a spokesperson for the Department of Defence suggested that the airplane was not flying either to or from a war zone. Who is in a position to establish the veracity of that? They were hardly going to a bridge conference in Sicily.
The flying of the Jolly Roger is a kind of what might be called US Air Force "laddism". These flags, which the Minister's reply states are unauthorised, are flown as the airplane goes into combat. That part was established. While I am not straying from the question, we know what informal "laddism" does in armies. Does the Minister regard it as offensive and unnecessary? Given that it landed on the Irish Air Corps strip in Baldonnel, is it not extraordinary that if the airplane complied with everything the Minister said — I do not question that if he tells me so — why did it land at Baldonnel and not use Shannon, for example?
I do not have that information here, but I can get it for the Deputy. I agree that the hoisting of that flag is not to be repeated and it is accepted as such.
Was an explanation sought or given as to why the flying of that flag should have been allowed? As we know from our school days, the flying of the Jolly Roger could denote piracy, poison or death. I presume it was meant to convey one or all of these in a way that encompassed bravado or "laddism", as my colleague, Deputy Michael Higgins, said. In the field of international relations it is not a great idea and some explanation should be provided for the incident.
The matter came to my notice on publication of the newspaper carrying the photograph, whereupon my officials on my behalf promptly brought the matter to the attention of the United States Embassy. We were clearly not happy with the situation. The embassy was very co-operative in investigating the matter and confirmed that the flying of livery by a US military aircraft other than officially sanctioned flags was against military regulations. The question of further action is a matter for the US authorities and I understand that the issue has been taken up internally by them. I particularly wanted to ensure such an action would not happen again and I am confident this is the case. I will find out for Deputy Higgins why the airplane landed at Baldonnel rather than Shannon, as I do not know,
