As for Michael D. Higgins; the words "Fruit Loop" spring to mind.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 03/16/2003 4:51:06 AM PST by MadIvan
LAST week, the Taoiseach twice signalled that Ireland would continue to give the US military landing facilities at Shannon, with or without a second UN resolution authorising war in Iraq. And he did so first in the Dail, and later in remarks after his brief White House meeting with President Bush.
On Wednesday, before he left for the US, Bertie Ahern refused, formally, to declare what the Government response would be to American military action against Iraq taken outside the UN framework.
But the Taoiseach laid the ground for a continuation of US access to Shannon, by citing past precedents, Vietnam and Kosovo, when the American military last used the airport facility as the US waged wars without UN approval.
In the Dail, he said that based on a "strictly legal interpretation", the issue of US overflights and the use of the facilities at Shannon by the military simply did not arise. Accordingly, the Opposition took his statement as a virtual declaration of future Government intent.
It was sufficient for Labour's Michael D Higgins to warn the Government would now have the "blood of Iraqi children and civilians" on their hands, while claiming that 100,000 could be killed in a war that did not merit a Dail debate.
Clearly, the Taoiseach's action is designed to condition public opinion before any final Government decision is taken, and to do so well before the Dail debate. This is due in the event of military action against Iraq, either with or without UN sanction.
The Government's position on Iraq has become more flexible over recent weeks as the US and UK have faced increased difficulties in securing support for military action at the Security Council. A month ago the Fianna Fail parliamentary party unanimously passed a motion calling for a second UN resolution before any military action against Iraq was taken. And later the Taoiseach told RTE that a second UN resolution was a "political imperative". Although, Foreign Affairs Minister Brian Cowen subsequently said that it was "politically important".
At that time a second Security Council resolution seemed set to secure majority support, thereby giving an American-led invasion of Iraq the seal of UN approval. But as that becomes less likely, the Government has to contemplate the alternative scenario: namely, the prospect of war within days and without specific UN authorisation.
In those circumstances the Government, while not engaging in military action against Iraq (since the war would not have UN approval), would nevertheless continue to facilitate the US war effort, via overflights and facilities at Shannon. That was the gist of Bertie Ahern's private message to George Bush.
The approach, if adopted, would create some domestic problems, given the state of public opinion, and the attitude of the Opposition parties.
In the Dail, Fine Gael has opposed continued military use of Shannon, if the UN fails to back military action against Iraq. John Bruton has even claimed such unilateral action would be illegal; it is an issue on which international lawyers remain divided.
Labour already opposes the existing military use of Shannon. But rest assured that if Dail roles were reversed, and Fine Gael was now leading a rainbow coalition, matters would be little different. It would be acting just like Fianna Fail is.
It would be fudging the Iraq issue, while hoping (and praying) a second UN resolution might pass, or else that Iraq somehow might comply with the UN requirement, thereby avoiding war. Labour, undoubtedly, would wrestle with its conscience. But it would be a one-sided bout, with a predictable outcome.
The downside political risk for the opposition approach is limited. In the short term it generates a temporary feelgood factor to be seen as anti-war. And while there are some parallels with the French position on Iraq, the dimensions and the consequences are different in each case.
President Chirac's reckless threat to veto any new resolution presents the US and UK with an excuse they may take to ignore the UN, while blaming the French, once they feel a majority for a second resolution cannot be secured.
If war goes ahead in those circumstances, if victory is secured quickly and involves a low casualty rate, if Saddam Hussein's stock of weapons of mass destruction is found, and it proves to be substantial, then Jacques Chirac will have great difficulty in justifying his whole anti-American stance. Having sought to raise his own international profile, and to increase French influence on world affairs, he will have achieved the opposite.
The French president risks being viewed as Saddam Hussein's protector. He could also be blamed for dividing the EU and Nato quite unnecessarily. He could be faulted for undermining the UN, by refusing to support effective enforcement of its own resolutions, and for even sacrificing French influence in pursuit of a reckless and irresponsible gamble.
If that is one possible scenario, then the other is one where a war against Iraq without specific UN authority finally takes its toll on Tony Blair's leadership. He becomes the first major political casualty of the Iraqi conflict, and is forced to resign.
That would have a huge negative impact on some key Irish concerns. For with Gordon Brown as his most likely successor, Britain would be less likely to join the euro, while British influence within Europe would diminish.
Ireland may well be nominally neutral bystanders. However, it cannot escape the political and economic fallout from such a conflict.
As for Michael D. Higgins; the words "Fruit Loop" spring to mind.
Regards, Ivan
You're dreaming. Been there lately?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.