Two ultimatums were delivered from the summit meeting in the Azores yesterday between President George Bush, Mr Tony Blair and Mr Jose Maria Aznar. The first called on Saddam Hussein to disarm immediately. The second called on the United Nations Security Council to support the use of force against Iraq or see military action taken this week by the United States and Britain. Political judgment on these grave events concerns the legitimacy and legality of these ultimatums and the relationship between them.
The three leaders at yesterday's summit insisted they are working in line with Security Council resolutions already passed and for the best interests of the international organisation. They believe it has an essential role to play in maintaining international order and reconstructing Iraq after a military conflict. But in so identifying their own interpretations of the UN's best interests and threatening to take unilateral action to affirm them, they endanger its procedures and therefore its very existence. For if military action is taken against Iraq without explicit endorsement in another resolution, those responsible will be acting against the Security Council's current majority.
That makes today's decisions a crucial test of how the international system will be organised in coming years. There is an exceedingly thin line between the high political pressure at play through the Security Council and a decision by a minority of its members to take action outside its procedures. For these procedures precisely guarantee the UN's political legitimacy and international legality. Breaching them opens up a dangerous prospect of substituting unilateral action by the world's most powerful state in coalition with others willing to go along for the collective security the UN was founded to provide.
Thus this issue goes far beyond Iraq. Decisions taken in coming days will frame international order for the new century. States such as France, Russia and Germany which have refused to accept an ultimatum and the use of force against Iraq must decide whether it is better to abandon these positions in order to gain more time for arms inspections they believe are working. That deserves the most profound reflection and a willingness to take dramatic action. The smaller swing states on the Security Council have been utterly frustrated by the US and British refusal to accept a more prolonged period for inspection. France's determination to veto their approach has brought the crisis to a head. There seems little prospect that revised political positions by any of these states can resolve today what Mr Bush described yesterday as a "moment of truth for the world".
All members of the United Nations are affected by these events. Ireland has given the UN a central role in its security and neutrality policy. The Government must decide its attitude towards these events this week. It must recall the Dáil and explain what its approach will be, including to the use of Shannon by US aircraft.