For those who will march against war tomorrow in Dublin and around theworld, the invasion of Iraq is as illegal and immoral as it was a year ago, writes Colm Stephens
It is one year on since the invasion of Iraq. And despite the widespread understanding that those who launched it lied to justify their actions, there are still those who make excuses for a war that has brought little but bloodshed, bitterness and what the Americans call "blowback".
For those who will march against war tomorrow in Dublin and around the world, this war is as illegal and immoral as it was a year ago.
Tom Wright (Irish Times, March 6th) defends the invasion on two grounds, after first admitting that the most compelling reason, the supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), "are likely not to exist".
Firstly, he defends the invasion on the grounds that it saved the Iraqi people from the effects of the sanctions regime that was itself proposed and supported by the invading countries.
He omits, of course, the very reason for these sanctions - the non-existent WMDs! Not one moment's consideration of the idea that sanctions should have been ended by the UN long before the invasion is wasted by the self-confessed "liberal hawk".
Sanctions have now been removed by the UN, but have been replaced by the US administration's refusal to allow parts and equipment to be imported, for example, to repair the power stations.
Paul Bremer's diktat favours instead a waiting game, which will allow US companies to build anew and secure the contracts into the future. A new, restrictive sanctions regime in all but name.
This perversion of logic - "we saved Iraq from sanctions, imposed by us because of non-existent WMDs" - is more than just a student's mistake.
Wright displays his callousness and disregard for the victims by his closing comparison of the war dead to broken eggs from which the US should create an omelette, which is to be a new Iraq, fashioned in the US neo-liberal image.
His second reason in support of the war is that it reduced the threat of terrorism, a much-repeated claim in the last year. How hollow that assertion must now ring in the ears of the Madrid commuters as their trains pull into Atocha or El Pozo stations!
This brings us to the question of how we should react to the recent horrific killing of civilians in both Madrid and Iraq itself. The anti-war movements worldwide have always been very clear in their revulsion and rejection of any targeting of civilians, whether carried out by al-Qaeda, the Israeli defence forces, or US bombers at 30,000 feet. We do not distinguish between the commuter in Madrid, the worker in the Twin Towers and the women and children cowering in a cellar in the Gaza Strip or in an air-raid shelter in Baghdad.
The Spanish electorate has shown what the mature response is. Far from "appeasing terrorism" as US House Speaker Dennis Hastert would have it, it can be strongly argued that the rejection of José María Aznar's pro-war policies is exactly what Madrid bombers did not want.
Al-Qaeda and the like grow strong on the idea that the whole of the West is implacably opposed to Islam.
The Spanish electorate has demonstrated that all of Europe is not behind George W. Bush's new crusade, the so-called "war on terror". And so it is just as likely that the Madrid bombers' desire was a swing to the right behind the Partido Popular and a further polarisation between "crusader" Europe and the Islamic Middle East.
The Spanish electorate has, in fact, taken the first step on the way to combating the threat of terrorism. Removal of the reasons why terrorism springs up is the only proven way to solve the problem.
How could young Saudi Arabian, Iraqi or Palestinian men and women be persuaded to take enormous risks or even commit suicide in order to kill ordinary people in Madrid, New York, or Tel Aviv if their legitimate political demands were already met, if they enjoyed political freedom and if their countries were allowed to prosper and rule themselves if a manner that they chose themselves?
It is also clear what we must now do in Ireland. Tomorrow, March 20th, is the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Ordinary people can again take the opportunity to intervene in world affairs by taking to the streets and joining the demonstration called by the Irish Anti-War Movement and the NGO Peace Alliance.
We are following the call made first by US-based anti-war organisations and then supported by the European and World Social Forums, which have designated March 20th as a day against all occupations, whether they be in Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya or elsewhere.
What Ireland could deliver is of a scale similar to that promised by the new Spanish government.
The withdrawal of the Spanish contingent from the occupying forces has both military and political significance for the coalition that is now running Iraq for its own benefit.
An end to the use of Shannon would be another very tangible - currently over 10,000 troops and an unknown amount of weaponry pass through the airport every month - and highly symbolic move in showing the Middle East and the world that not everybody in the West supports Bush's and Blair's attempt to fashion the world in accordance with their blueprint.
The message to the Irish Government from the demonstration tomorrow will be loud and clear, with the key demands for an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq and the military use of Shannon. Those demands will be couched in terms so clear that not even Bertie Ahern will be able to twist their meaning to pretend that we really agree with him.
The year 2003 can be remembered as one in which our rulers ignored the biggest protests the world has ever seen and, against the wishes of their own people, launched an unjustified and unjustifiable war. 2004 poses very different problems for those politicians.
Coincidentally, each of the bellicose coalition of Aznar, Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Ahern faces elections. In the case of Spain, at least, these elections became a referendum on the war. In the rest of Europe and in the US, the voters will soon have a similar opportunity.
Bertie Ahern's recent pleas have shown that he is aware of the massive popular opposition to the Bush visit, which is aimed at turning Ireland into the set for a photo-opportunity in his re-election campaign.
What Bertie really fears is that the opposition to the Bush visit will turn out to be a galvanising force in rejecting the war and Ireland's participation in it, and lead to a defeat for the FF/PD Government parties in the local and European elections.
• Dr Colm Stephens is secretary of the Irish Anti-War Movement