VZCZCXRO7814
PP RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHDL #0545/01 3501445
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 161445Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY DUBLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0373
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL PRIORITY 0043
RUEHBL/AMCONSUL BELFAST PRIORITY 1134

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 DUBLIN 000545 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/16/2019 
TAGS: PREL PGOV EI AF
SUBJECT: IRISH POLICY DIRECTOR ON AFGHANISTAN, NATO PFP 
STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT 
 
REF: A. DUBLIN 535 
     ¶B. DUBLIN 521 
     ¶C. DUBLIN 510 
 
DUBLIN 00000545  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Robert J. Faucher.  Reasons 1.4( 
b/d). 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On December 15 Ciaran Murphy (STRICTLY 
PROTECT), Assistant Secretary General and Policy Director in 
the Irish Department of Defense, told Poloff there was a 
slight possibility Ireland would send two military trainers 
to Afghanistan to help train Afghan security forces.  Ireland 
hopes to ratify an EU Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a 
NATO Partnership for Peace SOFA, in 2010.  In deference to 
fears of awakening neutrality-based opposition to the SOFAs, 
the two SOFAs will apply only to Irish troops outside of 
Ireland and not/not to non-Irish troops in Ireland.  U.S. 
troops transiting to Afghanistan and Iraq through Shannon 
airport in Ireland will continue to be handled informally. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
SMALL, LARGELY SYMBOLIC, TRAINING MISSIONS 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (C) Murphy said Ireland had been exploring opportunities 
to contribute trainers to Afghanistan, but faced 
security-related and political obstacles.  He described 
discussions with Canada on sending two Irish soldiers, 
probably a Lieutenant or Captain and an NCO, as instructors 
in a Canadian-led training program for junior officers and 
NCOs.  Other participants would be from Sweden and Finland. 
This idea had been rejected as too dangerous, however, since 
Canada would not be able to provide logistical support such 
as secure housing or secure transportation. 
 
¶3. (C) The project's advantage would have been, according to 
Murphy, its political palatability in a country protective of 
its neutrality.  Murphy said his soundings had confirmed that 
working outside the NATO context with the Canadians, and with 
fellow neutral countries Sweden and Finland, would have met 
with the approval of the pacifist-oriented Green party (the 
junior coalition partner in the government) and of the Irish 
parliament. 
 
¶4. (C) Cautioning that he had "just heard of this yesterday," 
Murphy told Poloff that Irish trainers might/might 
participate in a similar, but NATO-led, training mission. 
This possibility, too, would have to pass scrutiny on 
security grounds and be approved by the parliament before 
getting a go-ahead.  Parliament approval would be more 
difficult, Murphy speculated, because of the NATO moniker, 
but he said parliament could probably be won over with the 
argument that Ireland must support the international 
community's efforts to build the capacity of the Afghan 
security forces to provide for their own security. 
 
------------------------------------ 
NO SOFA COVERING U.S. TROOP TRANSITS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶5. (C) When Poloff raised the possibility of concluding a 
SOFA agreement with Ireland to cover U.S. troops transiting 
through Ireland's Shannon airport on the way to/from 
Afghanistan and Iraq, Murphy insisted that it would be 
politically impossible to do so.  He explained that, because 
the Irish constitution forbids training or stationing of 
foreign troops on Irish soil, Ireland could not conclude a 
SOFA that would provide for the presence of foreign troops in 
Ireland.  Elaborating on that point, Murphy said that the two 
SOFA's that he hopes Ireland will ratify in 2010, a SOFA with 
European Union member states and a SOFA with NATO Partnership 
for Peace countries, would both include provisos that they do 
not/not apply to foreign troops transiting through Ireland, 
but only to Irish troops on missions outside Ireland.  (NOTE: 
Whether the Irish constitution forbids training or stationing 
of foreign troops in Ireland, as Murphy claims, is open to 
question;  the relevant passage, Article 15.6., states: "The 
right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is 
vested exclusively in the Oireachtas (Parliament).  No 
military or armed force, other than a military or armed force 
raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or 
maintained for any purpose whatsoever."  END NOTE.) 
 
¶6. (C) Murphy further averred that, while the Irish 
constitution does not forbid foreign troops transiting 
through Ireland or coming for ship visits, as U.S. troops do, 
a SOFA that included provisions for transiting troops would 
require legislative approval, since the constitution gives 
the Irish parliament authority over military forces.  Getting 
 
DUBLIN 00000545  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
legislation approving troop transits, and giving U.S. troops 
transiting Ireland any sort of special status, said Murphy, 
would entail a major public debate that would shine a 
spotlight on the fact that U.S. troops are transiting Ireland 
on the way to Afghanistan; it would awaken the opposition of 
an Irish populace that is very zealous of Ireland's 
neutrality.  Murphy added that it could also jeopardize Irish 
national security, since it would highlight Ireland's help to 
the U.S. and thus expose it to possible terrorist attacks by 
al Qaeda or associated groups.  The conclusion to all of 
this, Murphy maintained, is that the current informal 
arrangement, in which troops are transiting regularly and 
without incident, should remain in place. 
 
¶7. (C) COMMENT: Irish officials have been noncommittal and 
reticent in our engagement with them on additional 
contributions to Afghanistan (reftels), but profess to want 
to contribute more.  We are stressing to them the symbolic 
importance of making an additional contribution, of trainers 
and/or development assistance, in time for the January 28 
London conference.  Judging from our conversations with 
interlocutors, including Murphy, an additional troop 
contribution appears not to be forthcoming; however we will 
keep pressing the Irish on additional police or troop 
trainers and development assistance.  END COMMENT. 
 
 
ROONEY