Ony the UN can decide when war is justified and if we do not respect institutions such as the Security Council, the result will be mayhem and anarchy, argues Gay Mitchell
Truth is usually the first casualty of war. In the case of Iraq, the United Nations was the first casualty. Richard Perle, chairman of the Defence Policy Board which advises the Pentagon, has already welcomed its demise, but Ireland should be working now to ensure the wounds are not fatal.
The US and Britain may achieve their objectives in Iraq, and they may do so quickly. But they took two gambles.
One is the gamble that they can, within a reasonably short period, win the war in Iraq. The other gamble is with the future of the UN Security Council itself. Is this something worth risking at this time and in the circumstances as they have evolved?
The UN Charter provides the opportunity for a world in which there will be control, on a collective basis, over aggression and aggressors. The continued pursuit of unarmed neutrality of the kind that Ireland has come to expect is only possible if there is a collective security. This is why I have never understood the attitude of certain members of the Dáil who are against both unilateral action and multilateral action even if duly authorised by the UN Security Council.
They have put themselves in the same camp as those who believe, for different reasons, that the UN Security Council is irrelevant and should be ignored.
If nations take the view that they are against war in all circumstances then what is the point of the UN, or the UN Security Council? Are we not simply unleashing international powers to act as they wish when they wish? It is for the UN Security Council under Chapter Vll of its Charter, to decide when war is or is not justified.
The UN Security Council is an imperfect body, so are the Irish Government, the Dáil, the Supreme Court, and the European Union institutions. But if we do not respect institutions the result will be mayhem and anarchy.
The rise of world tensions and the death of 60 million people in the second World War, 40 million of them in Europe, followed the failure of the League of Nations. This was succeeded by the UN to prevent a recurrence of such human loss and suffering.
A weak League of Nations allowed Japan to invade Manchuria, allowed Italy to invade Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and gave the green light to Hitler who knew that there was no collective security organisation to prevent him from pursuing his evil deeds.
At this time, the UN Security Council has not approved attacks on Iraq. There was no immediate threat to the security of the region from Iraq, unlike the Kuwait invasion which gave rise to the Gulf War, approval for which was given by Dáil Éireann with the support of Fine Gael.
I have listened to anti-American speeches, dressed up as constructive comment, and I regret and resent them. I acknowledge the close economic and personal ties between Ireland and the United States, and the great contribution made by the United States to international security and the free world. I also note the writings of the former US president, Jimmy Carter, stating that war in Iraq cannot be justified in the current circumstances.
I note the resolution passed by the New York City Council and the views of many responsible US leaders who do not share the views of President Bush at this time.
So to be against an attack on Iraq, in these circumstances, is not to be anti-American. My reservations about this war now are based on principle, especially the principle of collective security and the rule of law.
What does collective security mean? "Quite simply, it means all the member-states of the United Nations pledged to accept the Charter as their code of conduct in international relations and agreed to act collectively, in accordance with the Charter and through the organs it has established, against any of their number who clearly and persistently violate it," to quote former taoiseach, Charles Haughey, speaking in the Dáil on January 18th, 1991, on a motion to approve military action against Iraq.
Chapter Vll of the UN Charter deals with action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.
Within the UN Charter, article after article make it clear that it is for the Security Council to make these decisions. What has happened to the principles set out by the then taoiseach in 1991 and the views of Eamon de Valera, as president of the Council of the League in 1932, to bring about such change on the part of the current Taoiseach that he would come in to the Dáil and lay before the House, at the eleventh hour, proposals which run completely counter to those well-established principles?
If member-states act in their own selfish interests, then it cannot be long before the UN goes the way of the League of Nations. Who, then, will secure the international peace?
Respect for democratic institutions is what Western leaders say they want of the Iraqi regime. Respect for democratic institutions is vital, which is why the Dáil should have been more directly involved in the Iraqi question as it unfolded and why the role of the United Nations should be upheld.
War in itself cannot always be opposed. There is such a thing as a just war and a war lawfully declared. Decisions of life and death are, at times, the business of democratically elected Governments. These decisions can only be taken subject to the control of democratically created institutions, in this case the United Nations Security Council.
The UN Security Council is in need of reform - for example, perhaps a qualified majority should suffice for peacekeeping and peace enforcement decisions. It has imperfections but it is the only authority in existence that can authorise war.
To ignore the UN is to play the game of Saddam Hussein who has no time for due process and the rule of law.
•Gay Mitchell TD is Fine Gael's spokesman on Foreign Affairs