Ireland aims to look forward, not backwards in recrimination, writes Deaglán de Bréadún.
The chants and slogans will be heard all over the land, with protests at different locations tonight at 7 p.m., just over an hour before Air Force One lands at Shannon.
Tomorrow morning, just as President Bush and the Taoiseach are about to go into their bilateral meeting prior to the EU-US Summit, a mass protest will be assembling nearby.
While most of the obloquy will be directed against Mr Bush, considerable spleen will also be vented over Ireland's policy towards the Iraq conflict, particularly the decision to allow the use of Shannon Airport as a transit facility for US forces.
One of the Government's most vociferous critics, Mr Roger Cole of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA), maintains that the official Irish stance on the Iraq conflict was fatal for Irish neutrality. "Under international law, a state which wishes to be regarded as neutral cannot allow its territory to be used by belligerents in a war," he says. "Under no circumstances can this State now be regarded as neutral."
He maintains that Iraq was invaded illegally: "So it was not just any old war." He views Iraqi resistance to occupation as a legitimate independence struggle, similar to the Irish and, indeed, American wars of independence.
This analysis is not shared by Irish policymakers, who make the point that Shannon had customarily been used by friendly foreign states for decades. The question of withdrawing the use of Shannon did come up in Government circles, because "you couldn't ignore the protests."
However, it was decided not to withdraw the facility from the US government. "It didn't amount to endorsing the war," official sources claimed. At the same time, the Government did not want to be seen as obstructing the US war effort and was anxious, for tactical and diplomatic reasons, not to get in the way of the Americans.
Shannon was convenient but not essential to the US. Withdrawing its use would have had no meaningful impact on the war, senior sources believe, but would have had other, undesirable consequences.
"It would have injured our relations and our capacity to talk to the Americans about finding a way out of this mess," according to one diplomatic insider. "We were in a very unusual position," said another.
Ireland was constitutionally committed to the peaceable resolution of disputes through multilateral agencies, such as the UN. At the same time, the Government was sensitive to the "very difficult circumstances" the US found itself in, which generated an almost unstoppable momentum towards war.
It was not a question of raising these issues with the US on a once-off basis. "We are always talking to the Americans," sources said. However, there was no question of "censuring" the US administration, but rather making the point that, "least done, soonest mended".
The atmosphere at tomorrow morning's bilateral and the subsequent EU-US summit will be characterised by a determination not to look backwards and engage in recrimination but to find a common path towards a peaceful, stable Iraq.
While there were many areas of agreement between Ireland and the US, the Taoiseach and the US President did not see eye-to-eye, for example, on the role of Mr Yasser Arafat in the Middle East. Mr Bush appeared to view him as part of the problem; Ireland regarded the Palestinian chairman as part of the solution.
On the direct issue of Iraq, Ireland had been less vocal than France or Germany about the desirability of the invasion but official sources insisted the Government had not favoured the war. When Ireland was still a member of the Security Council at the end of 2002, our UN Ambassador, Mr Richard Ryan, had indicated the Government would require UN approval to support the military option when he said: "As far as Ireland is concerned, it is for the Council to decide on any ensuing action."
It has not gone without comment that little has been made of this apparent anti-war stance by the Government. It is understood that some Ministers do not want to create difficulties in our relationship with a powerful economic partner, namely, the US.
Indeed, official sources admitted to a certain relief that, when push came to shove over Iraq, Ireland's two-year Security Council term had already ended. Would Ireland have voted against Uncle Sam? "We'll never know: every effort would have been made to avoid it."
Official sources insisted Ireland had difficulty with "certain aspects" of US policy on Iraq but refused to be drawn on the specific nature of these reservations. The Taoiseach would express some of Ireland's concerns to President Bush tomorrow, but in a friendly manner: "He's not going to jump on the guy and stick daggers in his back."