Vincent Browne: Four weeks ago in these columns I was critical of the Government's commitment of €1 million in aid to the victims of the Katrina hurricane in Louisiana and Mississippi. I wrote: "Having reneged on our commitment to provide 0.7 per cent of our GNP to overseas development aid to the world's poorer countries, now to be splurging money on the world's richest country is shameful, all the more so when the impulse to do so is straightforward sycophancy, nothing at all to do with humanitarian concern".
Niall O'Dowd, publisher of the Irish Voice in New York and someone much involved in the peace process during the Clinton administration, characterised my objection to the commitment by the Government as an example of "the reflexive anti-Americanism which has become such a part and parcel of the Irish intelligentsia".
He continued: "Under the Bush era this anti-Americanism has reached its zenith. Now it seems that even desperate hurricane victims should be made feel the cold lash of Irish disapproval."
He went on to claim that if the attitude reflected in my remarks were replicated in America, "all American aid and support for Ireland would immediately stop".
What is this anti-American thing? Because I disagree with Irish foreign policy and most of the present Government's domestic policies, because I abhor the rise of racism here, the prejudice against Travellers, the indifference to the most vulnerable generally in society, am I thereby anti-Irish?
Similarly, are those Americans who are opposed to American foreign policy and who oppose most of the present administration's domestic agenda thereby anti-American? Nor do I regard everything American as bad.
The political thinker for whom I have most regard, John Rawls, was American. A great deal of American music is wonderful. American architecture is often breathtaking. Americans are in the forefront of campaigns against war, for human rights, for justice, against racism. Perhaps the most admired sportsman in the world, Muhammad Ali, is an American.
American science has transformed and is transforming the world. So what is this anti-American thing? Anyway, shouldn't our arguments stand or fall of their own merits?
I contend that the prioritising of the poor of the world's richest nation over the poor of the world's poorest nations is a symptom of a shameful sycophancy that has beset Irish foreign policy of late, in a way that was not previously the case.
Remember how Ireland took an initiative on nuclear disarmament and on the seating of the People's Republic of China at the UN in the early 1960s, contrary to American foreign policy? Remember how Garret FitzGerald, in the presence of President Ronald Reagan, spoke out at a reception in Dublin Castle against American policy on Central America in the mid-1980s?
Our world did not fall in then, economic ties were not cut, and we continued to be invited to the White House for St Patrick's Day (surely, the test of Ireland's "reliability").
America's neighbours, Canada and Mexico, stood out against America on the invasion of Iraq. If they, with most to lose, can bring themselves to do that, why can't we?
We said we were against the war (or rather Bertie Ahern said we were); our representative at the UN said the infamous resolution 1441, passed with our support at the Security Council in November 2002, would not justify invasion; and yet when America and Britain went ahead in defiance of UN Security Council opinion, in defiance of world opinion and in defiance of our own stated position, what do we do?
We facilitate the action which we implied would be illegal and were against anyway.
But not just that. We also facilitate their illegal abduction of people around the world and their transportation to torture centres (the facilitation itself properly a criminal act), and when some of us protest about this, we are accused of being anti-American and, by inference, anti-Irish.
There is a view, articulated by Garret FitzGerald and obviously shared by the present Government, that foreign policy should be determined, not by our ideals, but by our interests. Isn't this a little too crude?
Does there not come a time when our ideals should take precedence, especially when the likelihood is that our interests would not be adversely affected?
Garret, I think, is of the view that opposition to the use of Shannon airport is mere posturing, that it would make no difference to the conduct of the war in Iraq, for the Americans would use Prestwick or some other UK airport, with little inconvenience to themselves, or to the conduct of the war. But is opposition to the use of Shannon just posturing?
If we think the war is wrong, how can we facilitate it? If we tell the Americans they cannot use Shannon, our opposition to the war might register with them and with others who might also be emboldened to oppose the war. And a few of them might think beyond the cliche of anti-Americanism.