World View: The Iraq war now appears to have been justified on an entirely false basis. Robin Cook's reasons for resigning as British Foreign Secretary - the absence of a second UN resolution, and in particular his doubts as to the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - have been vindicated. This is profoundly challenging to the Irish Government, and others like it that assisted the war, writes Michael D. Higgins.
The Government, including the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, not only stressed the existence of such an imminent threat for their covert and overt support for the war, they, in the case of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, actually denied that regime change was the purpose of a war on the people of Iraq.
The existence of WMD referred to in a number of UN resolutions was their sole justification. Now they are shown to have swallowed propaganda from Britain and the United States offered as incontestable intelligence.
Such intelligence was, of course, challenged at every stage, not only by those who opposed the war but by those who had worked in different departments, including the military in both the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, the plagiarism at the base of Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council was not only embarrassing, but was so crude that it should have served as warning to those other than uncritical supporters of a US-British rushed war.
Certainly the decision of countries like Canada to withhold support on the basis of such flimsy assertions has now been thoroughly vindicated. We now understand as well why it was that so many countries withheld support for a resolution, despite being put under the greatest intimidation of an economic and diplomatic kind.
The latest Resolution 1483 of May 22nd, far from reasserting the authority of the United Nations, humiliates it. It puts a gloss on what a recent publication, issued with the authority of the Vatican, calls the manner in which "the United States has torn international law to shreds".
The occupying powers are urged to meet their obligations under the Geneva Convention, but are given recognition as "the authority" which will disburse funds from the sale of Iraqi oil.
The proceeds of Iraqi oil will pay not only for the cost of reconstruction but for the costs incurred by the occupying forces including, as Article 14 puts it, costs incurred "for the continued disarmament of Iraq". Put bluntly, the people of Iraq will pay for all of the consequences of a war visited on them without UN mandate - a war that the Government assisted through the provision of facilities at Shannon.
Indeed the full judgment in a recent High Court case becomes now more relevant. The basis advanced for the use of Shannon has been entirely discredited.
The resolution correctly suggests that crimes committed by members of the previous administration should be investigated and those responsible brought to justice. It is silent on what action should be taken for breach of the Geneva Convention or crimes committed against the Iraqi people in preparation for the war or in the prosecution of it by the occupying powers.
Those of us who support and admire the work of such organisations as UNICEF and CARE, whose workers remained in Iraq, continue to be indebted to them for their updates on the humanitarian situation as it exists today for the Iraqi people, be it in terms of water, educational supplies, immunisation or repair of infrastructure.
Their work on transporting water, supplying books and materials, medical aid and so many other basic needs has continued with scant media attention.
Some of us have been criticised for quoting UNICEF estimates for likely civilian casualties should Baghdad, as had been threatened, be subjected to the "shock and awe" of carpet bombing.
When those estimates were prepared the information was that the Republican Guard would be billeted in private houses, that the civilian population of a 5.5 million population city would be used as human shields and subjected to a siege by the invading forces.
That such estimates did not transpire due to the fact that up to half of the population of Baghdad was allowed to leave, that the Republican Guard capitulated in the face of overwhelming superior military power and that so many saved their lives by fleeing their homes which were later looted, are used by the hawks as a justification for the war. Those of us who oppose the war, on the other hand, welcome such saving of lives.
What was visited, of course, on the cities of Iraq was the further devastation and destruction of its infrastructure. Such devastation was visited on a population already brought to its knees by sanctions imposed in the name of the UN and that were justified on the basis of the possession of WMD that constituted a threat to Iraq, the region and the world.
What now have those who supported the sanctions to say to the relatives of all those who died and suffered due to the obstruction in the supply of medicines and medical equipment?
There is little international media attention on the breach of their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention by the occupying powers.
They are required to ensure the safety of civilians. Their forces were prohibited from damaging anything required for "the protection and sustenance of children", for example.
Today, as civilians put holes in the pipes carrying water, often creating stagnant pools that contaminate the water farther on; as electricity supply, needed for purification systems, is intermittent; as the basic necessities for hospitals are interrupted; as a food distribution system is being wound up, the relief organisations appeal again and again for security.
The security is available for oil. It is not available for the Iraqi people. They, in an oil-rich country, queue for oil as it hardens in the pipeline.
No, it has been a short, sharp victory. It has been an illegal war conducted on what has now been shown to be a bogus basis. The Iraqi people no longer enjoy the cameras of the world's media. In time, they are told, those who will now seize ownership of their resources will be willing to talk to them about their humanitarian needs.
The UN, meanwhile, is accorded what is called "a vital role" but not a leadership role. It is allowed to deal with the victims. The occupying powers will deal with the oil.
Michael D. Higgins is Labour Party spokesman on Foreign Affairs