US cannot dictate our moral code

AS leaders around the world condemn the escalating war of “shock and awe” in Iraq, it defies credulity that Tánaiste Mary Harney should seek to deny Ireland’s entitlement to question the legality and motives of the United States and Britain in declaring hostilities.

Are we now to accept that the priorities and necessities of America and Britain should dictate Ireland’s moral code and that people’s deeply-held principles should count for nought?

Ms Harney claims that to deny US access to Shannon would be counter to Irish interests and weaken Ireland’s close ties with “our closest friends”. Be that as it may, such friendship should not mean abrogating the right to stand up and be counted when the occasion demands.

Whether the Tánaiste likes it or not, and despite her marked leanings towards America, this country is not yet a federal subject of the US.

In defending the continued use of Shannon airport and Irish airspace by the US military, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Dáil that to withdraw the facilities would be a radical change in Irish foreign policy and would be seen as a hostile act. Arguably, by permitting American use of the transit facility, Ireland will be seen as committing an act of hostility against Iraq.

As reflected in the Dáil debate, there are deeply-held views on both sides of this issue. Many support the Opposition claim that the Government has a responsibility to put moral and humanitarian principles before economic considerations.

Indeed, if Trócaire followed the Coalition’s example, it would grab US and British money for its emergency work in Iraq. But, as emphasised by Bishop John Kirby, the organisation has a conscience. Thus, on a point of principle, it will not accept funding from either the American or British governments.

Contrary to the thinking that imbues Coalition policy, there is a strongly-held view that Ireland should not acquiesce to the belligerent tactics of other nations solely for economic or political reasons.

There is no denying that by permitting the US to use Shannon, this country is facilitating the war with Iraq, a war regarded by many as illegal and immoral. It makes a mockery of our much vaunted policy of neutrality.

Meanwhile, reports from the war front that six Scud missiles were fired on Kuwait have confirmed suspicions that Saddam Hussein still controls weapons banned by the UN and hidden from the inspectors. It will be seized upon as justification for sending the most powerful army ever assembled into Iraq.

However, as evidenced by anti-war protests around the globe, the laudable campaign to remove the despotic Saddam and his family, does not provide legitimacy for the unleashing of thousands of missiles on innocent people.

With the UN effectively sidelined, the danger facing the international community is that diplomacy has given way to the rule of force.

Most worrying, perhaps, is the fact that US President George W Bush has a frighteningly simplistic view of world affairs. Even more alarming is the realisation that the most powerful man in the world requires simple answers to complex questions and is surrounded by aides ever willing to provide them.

From the Roman Empire to the US, history shows that when superpowers pursue a narrow philosophy of self-interest, war invariably takes precedence over diplomacy in disputes. When that happens, no nation is secure.