Ireland should not adopt a policy at the Security Council of grovelling to the powerful and whimpering on behalf of the weak, urges Michael D. Higgins
The article yesterday by Tom Wright under the heading "Case for backing US is overwhelming" is the most straightforward invitation to abandon any commitment to either a morality in international relations or the principles of international law that I have read in recent times. To many it will seem outrageous. To some, a small but powerful minority, it is an honest description of their mind-set that favours grovelling to the powerful and whimpering on behalf of the weak - whichever is appropriate for the situation.
"We should side with our traditional allies and keep their favour, which may prove critical in future years with respect to the peace process and the economy," we were told by Mr Wright.
The justification for this is that "unfortunately we live in a brutal, Hobbesian world where power and interest do matter," Mr Wright believes. "We should also be realistic about the world as it is rather than as we would like it to be. Military action against Iraq is highly probable and will occur with or without the approval of the United Nations. George W. Bush and Tony Blair have made that clear. Even if we could block a resolution we cannot block military action, which will occur regardless of the machinations of the Security Council".
We are indeed at a crossroads. If we were to accept the views of Mr Wright, some of which have been illustrated above, we would be doing little less than abandoning our commitment to international law, and to the only multilateral institution we have that seeks to institute the role of diplomacy as an alternative to war - the United Nations - whose preamble expresses its basic aim "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".
Article 1 of the UN Charter sets out its purposes, the first of which is: "To maintain international peace and security; and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."
What is at stake is little less than the integrity of the United Nations and its Security Council.
As we wait for the vote on the Security Council shortly, it is important for us to recognise that the earlier threat of the most powerful country in the world and its ally, Britain, that they will, if necessary, act militarily, without a UN mandate, was and remains, a threat to act illegally.
It is also illegal under the UN Charter to make a peremptory strike. The conditions for invoking a right of military action in defence are also limited and far from unconditional.
The threat, for example, would be regarded by many as having to be imminent, and any response proportionate. This is what diplomacy is about - achieving an alternative to the threat and consequences of military action which in recent times has, in flagrant violation of international law, rained down death and destruction on civilians who are not the authors of any conflict. The mind-set to which Mr Wright appeals seems happy to accept such phrases as "collateral damage" as a description of such appalling human rights abuses.
What is important now is that Ireland not allow itself to be bullied into accepting a covert mechanism for war through a text in a resolution sponsored by the US and Britain that would contain an automatic right, in circumstances that would be adjudged by the US and Britain, for a military strike against Iraq.
It is important that the weapons inspectors return to Iraq. Any new resolution should confine itself to clarification as to how Hans Blix and his team can carry out their mission without impediment and with integrity.
THE Security Council has to retain the right of judging such reports as may come from the inspection team. It is for it, and it alone, to respond to the inspectors' report. This may in time require a further resolution. It is interesting that previous attempts in similar circumstances to include an automatic right of military strike were strongly resisted by the Security Council.
The British and US position has been structured around a notion of "anticipatory self-defence".
This approach was rejected by Britain in the past when it described the bombing by Israel of an Iraqi nuclear reactor as "a grave breach of International Law".
If countries like Ireland are to abandon international law, are to substitute a narrow strategy of interests for morality, they damage not only the UN but themselves. Our credibility is already seriously damaged by our fudging of the relationship between the international campaign against terrorism, and the build-up for a military strike against Iraq, in the case of the use of Shannon Airport by US military personnel. For what exactly has the Taoiseach given his permission? I believe he has no mandate for the use to which Shannon is currently being put.
What is particularly tragic at the moment is the presentation of the conflict involving Iraq as inevitably requiring war.
Our television media - particularly that part of it owned by Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair's particular friend - interviews four military experts for every political expert. It is not only on Mr Murdoch's network, however, or on that form of media, that one sees the acceptance of an inevitable drift to war.
This acceptance of inevitability in our lives is consistent of course with the suggestion that there is but one version of the economy, an end of history, the death of ethics, and an appropriate individualism that eschews solidarity and any transcendent public values.
Mr Wright may have written a shabby article for shabby times. It is encouraging that more than two out of three of Irish people polled take a different view - one that seeks to hold on to some semblance of self-respect in international affairs, one for which it was worth declaring ourselves a Republic.
Ireland must continue to support the United Nations on this issue. Our history has had enough of forelock tugging.
• Michael D. Higgins is Labour Party spokesman on international affairs and a former statutory lecturer in political science and sociology at National University of Ireland Galway.