Those drafting the Irish response to the US-British bombing of Iraq must have tried hard to frame a response that gave no indication as to which side of the debate they were on. They succeeded.
"We regret that it was not possible for the work of the UN inspectorate to be completed and we're disappointed that a peaceful resolution could not be reached." After months in which Iraq's leadership defied the United Nations, and as US and British planes bombed Bagdhad, this was the statement issued to the media by the Government on Wednesday night.
In the Dail yesterday morning the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, stuck closely to this form of words. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrews, did the same when speaking to reporters yesterday morning. At the time, he was with the German Foreign Minister, Mr Joschka Fischer, a Green Party minister who felt able to say that President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks.
Mr Andrews added that Iraq should comply with UN Security Council decisions and that it would be preferable if civilian casualties were avoided and the crisis was resolved by peaceful means.
There are therefore three elements to the Government's position on the US and British bombing of Bagdhad following Iraq's repeated non-co-operation with UN weapons inspectors:
The fact that force was necessary is disappointing;
The use of force should be kept to a minimum;
The rule of law should be upheld, including Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions.
There cannot be many countries whose response consisted solely of a set of principles to which the US, Britain and Iraq could happily sign up. As demands continued for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, one wondered what position Ireland would take were it a member.
Ireland is a candidate member of the Security Council, hoping to be elected to it for a two-year period in the year 2000. It is the Security Council which takes tough decisions on whether to support or oppose particular proposed military actions.
The inscrutability of the Irish position was not shared by many states yesterday. Italy, Russia and China strongly opposed the bombings. Within the EU Spain, Denmark and, obviously, Britain strongly supported them. France expressed strong doubts about the effectiveness of the attacks.
Speaking for the EU presidency, the Austrian Foreign Minister, Mr Wolfgang Schussel, said the attacks were necessary but regrettable. He said President Saddam Hussein of Iraq bore full responsibility for the attacks.
This is by no means the first time that the Irish position on a major foreign policy matter is seen to avoid taking sides on the core issue. Earlier this year, for example, on the question of military action against Serbia over its behaviour in Kosovo, Mr Andrews continued to argue that explicit UN endorsement would be needed for any military action.
Russia was certain to veto such action at the UN Security Council, however. So the call for UN endorsement was in effect a negation of any implicit support for military action.
The Government has, however, taken strong and clear positions on a number of other issues. It initiated and promoted a nuclear disarmament initiative at the UN this year which was opposed by the US. It has taken a notably strong line against Indonesian actions in East Timor.
However it appears that when it comes to actions taken by the US and Britain, the Government is reluctant to criticise. In the case of the attacks on Iraq, the actions involved both countries. The central role played by the US and Britain in the peace process is likely to be the main factor preventing any official criticism.