The day was inevitable when the poisoned chalice of Irish neutralism must be tasted and drunk to the dregs, with all its vile consequences. To judge from the Irish Times/MRBI poll on whether we should support the US in the event of a UN vote authorising military action, the evil day might soon be upon us, writes Kevin Myers. For that poll has produced the bizarre discovery that a majority of Irish people would oppose such UN-authorised action.
The entire thrust of the popular political mood in Ireland in recent decades has been against unilateral actions by the US; that UN authorisation must always be necessary. Now we're saying that not even the UN may authorise action. In other words, rejoice, tyrants of the world: mighty Ireland is outlawing action against you.
So welcome to the hallucinogenic world that decades of sanctimonious political neutralism have created: one without duty towards others, without a sense of common responsibility, without the obligations of true friendship, without an enduring principle to defend at cost to ourselves, or indeed to anyone else either. In other words, Toytown.
Neutralism has hitherto allowed us to stand back and tut-tut while the rest of the world set about its worldly business; and at the conclusion of that business, we expected to be loved and admired as we were before. But now we have taken that one stage further: we feel we have the right to obstruct UN authorisation of military action against dictatorships - in particular, the utterly wicked regime of Saddam Hussein.
Dáil debate
Sorry. The real world doesn't work like that, though perhaps the plain people of Ireland might be forgiven for thinking that it did. After all, for over half a century, all you had to do during a Dáil debate on defence was to mention the magic "N" word, and the entire house would fall on its knees, salaaming and howling piously. No real discussion on the meaning of "neutrality" occurred, and unquestioning deference towards it filled all public discourse.
It's not surprising that that wandering throng, the public at large, felt free to deify neutrality, but without going so far as to burn candles before its shrines, or sacrifice fatted calves before its graven images. For the marvellous thing about this Irish neutrality was that it was without cost - cost in terms of finance, or cost in terms of friendship. We were just neutral about everything, but we still expected to be loved.
Price of stupidity
There's a price to be paid for such wilful stupidity, and the first instalment is in the bar of public opinion: people do now genuinely believe that we can tell the UN - and by extension, the US - what to do in world affairs; that we can actually veto US actions towards Iraq, regardless of what the rest of the UN wants. And no doubt we expect the world to applaud our moral superiority.
The issue isn't whether or not a major military strike against Iraq is justified at the moment. To my mind, it's not, not until the entire process of weapons inspection by UN-led teams has been completed. But if at the end of that process the UN Security Council considers that Saddam's conduct is so dangerous that it merits US-led action, do some 60 per cent of the Irish people really think we should vote against such action - in other words, effectively siding with Saddam? Ah. This one again. For we've seen this kind of diseased casuistical definition of neutrality before, when a dictator's regime was schmoozed up to, just to let his enemies know that we were masters of our own policy. As it happened, Herr Hempel was sweating with embarrassment while de Valera expressed Ireland's deep condolences on the death of his beloved Führer.
Brian Cowen is the most capable Foreign Minister we have had in a generation or more. He probably has no more respect for this absurd querulity, neutralism, than I have. But he is the heir to a poisonous legacy which has been passed down the generations, and which has contaminated popular perceptions about what policies are either possible or desirable.
The evidence that Saddam is planning imminent attacks with weapons of mass destruction is thin; at times it is farcical (that he is "looking for uranium in Africa": that's right, and I'm looking for free lobster and champagne for life).
But he is, nonetheless, the most toxic psychopath in the world. He has launched unprovoked attacks on three neighbouring countries, and murdered tens of thousands of his own people.
The moral case for overthrowing him has been made. Twelve years ago, most Irish people would have opted for sanctions to achieve that end. That was the policy the UN embraced; and in the intervening period, those sanctions have made him one of the richest men in the world, and the Iraqi people among the poorest. But with an unconditional lifting of sanctions, he would be able to resume his insane military projects, which would in due course be inherited by his thoroughly insane son.
Howl of outrage
The argument for doing nothing about Saddam does not exist. All forms of neutrality towards him end up effectively assisting him. Brian Cowen knows this. He also knows that we must stay friends with the US. So it's time he took a deep breath and started to explain a few painful home truths to the Irish people.
Oh, and Brian: be braced for a howl of outrage from the neutralist holier-than-thou left-liberals. No namby-pamby stuff here, my boy. Just give them a good kick up their transom and send them on their way. . .