IRELAND/CZECH REPUBLIC: A letter expressing support for the US position on Iraq and warning that the credibility of the UN would suffer if Baghdad failed to comply with the Security Council posed "no problem" for the Taoiseach, he said yesterday in Prague.
Mr Ahern noted, however, that he had not been asked to sign the letter, which was signed by the prime ministers or presidents of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the UK, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Denmark.
Published in several newspapers yesterday, the letter called for unity with the US over Iraq and warned the world body that its own credibility would suffer if Iraq did not adhere to the Security Council.
"I would have no difficulty with the sentiments expressed in the letter," said Mr Ahern.
He remarked that it echoed comments he made in the Dáil on Wednesday, expressing the hope that the Iraq issue "would be solved within the ambit of the UN Security Council".
However, the Taoiseach made clear his surprise and disappointment at the way in which the letter was made public.
"The contradiction is that they're looking for a unified position but they're not asking everybody," he told The Irish Times.
"It would be better for statements coming from European Union member-states to come from the general affairs council of the EU, where foreign ministers regularly meet."
In Dublin, a Government spokesman noted that none of the non-NATO members of the EU - Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland - had been asked to take part in the initiative.
The letter was confined to states that were allied to the US through NATO, he said.
Mr Ahern was in Prague for talks with the Czech Prime Minister, Mr Vladimir Spidla, and he also paid a courtesy call on Mr Vaclav Havel, the Czech President, who leaves office on Sunday.
Mr Havel's signature on the letter caused some irritation in Prague.
The Prime Minister said that his country's future decisions on Iraq were "a matter for parliament". Mr Cyril Svoboda, the Czech Foreign Minister, commented: "We are ready to participate in military operations if there is a UN mandate."
The letter, believed to have originated in Spain, caused ripples in east European capitals as differences emerged among signatory countries over how to interpret it.
Some saw it as a a vote of confidence in the UN, but many others perceived it as a deliberate snub to the Franco-German position and a chance to line up behind the US.
Several of the countries that did sign were among those referred to last week as "new Europe" by the US Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld.
The original draft was "a bit tougher and sharper", one diplomatic source in a signatory country told The Irish Times.
Several countries, including Hungary, found the original letter unacceptable and forced amendments which watered down the tone, the official said.
"Hungary's position has not changed. We are not siding with the US by signing this letter," said Mr Tamas Toth, a spokesman at the Hungarian foreign ministry.
He said Hungary had signed to "emphasise necessary common action and to show that the ties between the international community are stronger than any differences". Hungary has said it is making its airspace and airbases available to the US in the event of war, but no troops.
The Polish leader, Mr Leszek Miller, visits Washington next week, where he is expected to pledge Poland's military support to the US in an Iraq war. Poland has traditionally strong ties with the US, recognised by President Bush recently when he said "the US has no better friend in Europe than Poland".
The Polish mission in Baghdad acts as the de facto US embassy and is believed to pass on intelligence to Washington.
A leading analyst of Polish affairs said the letter said more about growing differences inside Europe over Iraq than European relations with the US.
"The signatories probably thought they were doing a service to other European Union members by keeping contacts alive with the US," said Mr Ryszard Stemplowski, director of the Polish Institute for International Affairs in Warsaw.
However, he said, the letter's significance should not be overstated, as it was "just one stage in a process with very many stages".
