We're a pit-stop on road to a war that may bring us even greater evil

HOW do you prove a negative? How do you satisfy the world that you no longer have weapons of mass destruction, that you haven't been developing a nuclear arsenal, that you aren't fully equipped with the means to pursue chemical and germ warfare?

The answer is you can't. And when the question is posed that way, when the onus of proof is on Iraq to demonstrate that they no longer need to be disarmed, the march towards war seems irrevocable.

The question has been posed that way to enable the US government to justify its actions, and for no other reason. Despite the fact that UN weapons inspectors have yet to report any evidence that would justify a military strike, the propagandists on the American side constantly bombard us with arguments based on the single assertion that Saddam Hussein hasn't proved his innocence, and therefore he and his people must be guilty.

I've already written here that in the history of the world, no democratic country has ever deliberately initiated a full-scale war with another country.

In the history of the world, no democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.

In that sense, the apparent decision of the American government, supported principally by the British government of Tony Blair, to initiate a war against Iraq without any direct provocation is an affront to democratic values.

Democrats don't set out to start wars.

People like Saddam Hussein do. He is a dictator, one whose loss will represent no pain to the rest of the world. All the evidence suggests that he has committed immense atrocities against his own people, atrocities more awful and more numerous than those of Slobodan Milosevic. Whereas Milosevic is on trial, Hussein is at large, and thousands may die because of it.

It makes no sense. In years to come, historians will wonder why a series of events that began with the terrorist bombing of New York on September 11 escalated into a war with Iraq. There is no connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Hussein runs a secular state, and is despised by bin Laden.

Indeed, if the deposing of Hussein has any long-term effect, it may be to desecularise Iraq and several of its neighbours. It would be one of the great ironies, wouldn't it, if America's war with Saddam Hussein achieved one of Osama bin Laden's objectives? The good news is that an increasing number of people, both in America and abroad, appear to have seen through the propaganda. The opposition to the war has gained strength as people everywhere recognise the lack of connection between the war against terror and the assault on Hussein. Increasingly, the absence of real motive for this war is giving rise to the suspicion that it is being run because of oil, and for no other reason.

Here in Ireland, I am absolutely certain that the small band of people who gather outside Shannon Airport every day, and the 2,000 or so who demonstrated there last Saturday, represent public opinion much better than our Government does. Whatever the constitutional or legal arguments, and there are many, the bottom line is that there is no support here for the Government's acquiescence in the use of Shannon as part of an obvious and overbearing military build-up.

The sight of marines wandering around Shannon in full uniform, and the pretence that there are no arms or munitions on board the planes that are carrying them, would be farcical if it weren't so serious.

This is neither a knee-jerk reaction nor an anti-American one. Many Irish people, and I was one of them, supported the American involvement in Bosnia, and supported the American decision to hunt down Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.

There are times when military action is unavoidable, and there are times when the greater good can only be served by standing up to terror.

What greater good is involved here? There is every likelihood that this will be a short, if terribly brutal, war. The US and its allies are not going to stop this time until Hussein is gone, either dead or in exile. But what then? How much more democratic is Iraq going to be when it's over? How much more stable is the entire region going to be? How many more battalions of alienated young men will be minded towards terrorism?

Our Government may have asked itself these questions. They may have a good argument for the supine position they have adopted in the face of impending war. If they have, none of us has heard it.

The last Gulf War was caused directly by Hussein's act of war the invasion of Kuwait, At its outset, Dáil Eireann adopted a motion pledging full support for the relevant United Nations resolution, on which military action was based.

There was a short debate in the Dáil on that occasion. The left, in the form of the Labour Party and Democratic Left, opposed the Government motion, but it was carried by 122 votes to 23.

On that occasion the principal way in which Irish Government support for the Gulf War was manifested was through the use of Shannon. Whether one agreed with it or not, the Government of the day accepted the necessity for a Dáil decision to back up that approach.

The present Government, however, needs to consult no-one except, presumably, the US Ambassador or whoever else they send out to provide reassurance. If US planes were landing in a Swedish airport, say, for refuelling, I doubt very much that the Swedish government would accept at face value the assertion that the Marines had left their weapons and other logistical support at home. There would be inspections, and they would happen by agreement. And Sweden wouldn't see itself, or be seen, as anti-American on that account.

Back in 1991, when he was moving the Dáil motion in support of the last Gulf War, the then Taoiseach, CJ Haughey, invoked the United Nations again and again.

He justified the use of Shannon by implying that its use for refuelling would be entirely in accordance with the specific provisions of Resolution 678, the resolution on which the start of the war was based. There is no such UN resolution. The UN has not decided at any level to take military action against Iraq, and has issued no request for support.

Our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, confirmed this recently when he said that "in the event of the Security Council deciding to sanction military action against the Iraqi regime, or indeed in the event of any military action being taken by any country or group of countries, the Government will review the existing situation in relation to overflights and landings and will bring the matter before the Dáil."

It is clear from this that the Government intends to consult the Dáil after the event, and that no real distinction is made between unilateral action and UN action. Permission has effectively already been given as part of the build-up to the war. It is not going to be withdrawn after the war starts. Making promises of consultation in this context is just a piece of cynical camouflage.