Ireland should support the US and UK in the UN Security Council decision on Iraq, argues Tom Wright
Ireland's sternest diplomatic challenge in many years is fast approaching. As an elected member of the UN Security Council, we will soon have to decide whether to endorse a US and UK resolution strengthening the UN inspections regime and laying the ground for military action against Iraq.
A recent opinion poll in The Irish Times, indicating that public opinion overwhelmingly opposes war with Iraq, strengthens the hand of those who argue that the Government should vote against the American and British proposal.
That would be a mistake. Our interests are best served by supporting whatever final US and UK resolution is put before the Security Council.
It is first necessary to place the decision in context. Our diplomats are rarely at the table of great powers discussing matters of war and peace so our role should not be overstated. As an elected member we have a voice but no veto; that is a privilege reserved for the five permanent member states.
However, given that a resolution requires nine votes out of a total of 15 to pass, our position could be ultimately decisive.
We should also be realistic about the world as it is rather than as we would like it to be. Military action against Iraq is highly probable and will occur with or without the approval of the United Nations. George W. Bush and Tony Blair have made that clear. Even if we could block a resolution we cannot block military action, which will occur regardless of the machinations at the Security Council.
Given that military action will likely proceed regardless of the UN's decision, our role changes from deciding on matters of war and peace to creating the conditions for war that will do the least damage to our national interests and our world view.
With that in mind, the case for voting for any UK-US resolution offered to the Security Council is overwhelming for four reasons.
First, if the UN does not authorise action the US will act anyway and set a precedent for pre-emption unsanctioned by the UN. Keeping military action within the auspices of that organisation removes the opportunity for other states to use a pre-emptive war with Iraq as an excuse for military initiatives of their own. Since we are committed to collective security and international stability, preventing a precedent for unilateral pre-emption is vital.
Second, UN support for US action may advance Ireland's goal, articulated in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, of preventing the use of nuclear weapons in conflict.
A UN resolution may provide Arab states with sufficient cover to support the war which would allow them to make their territory available to US troops. This territory may be critical if allied forces are to establish an early presence in western Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction against Israel, which could precipitate an Israeli nuclear response.
This risk is real. A senior US administration official recently described it as the greatest danger of any coming war.
Third, the failure of the UN Security Council to act in the face of repeated Iraqi transgressions will spell the end of the UN as a relevant international presence. Multilateralists within the Bush administration will be humiliated and the hawks vindicated. The consensus view in the United States is likely to be that President Bush went the extra mile only to be confronted by continuing appeasement and powerlessness. The Americans may leave the UN disillusioned and not return.
Ireland has an interest in the continued efficacy of the UN so we should do everything possible to ensure that the vital interests of the US can be accommodated through multilateral bodies such as the UN Security Council.
FINALLY, we may be punished diplomatically by the US and UK for voting No but we will face no punishment, and may even gain political capital, by voting Yes.
We should side with our traditional allies and keep their favour, which may prove critical in future years with respect to the peace process and the economy.
Many observers, particularly those with an idealistic view of international co-operation and the United Nations, will find these arguments most unsatisfactory. They may prefer that we take a position of principled opposition or be a conscientious objector regardless of the consequences.
Unfortunately we live in a brutal, Hobbesian world where power and interest do matter.
Normally we can stand aloof and take the high moral ground but having sought and won a seat on the Security Council that is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Another alternative is to side with Russia and France to dilute American demands. However, we should not be duped by the self-serving arguments of the French and Russians.
As the moderate Washington Post recently noted, both now portray themselves as champions of tough inspections and Iraqi disarmament - despite spending the past 10 years seeking to weaken, circumvent, and ultimately destroy the UN inspections and sanctions regime in pursuit of commercial advantage.
They are continuing to play that game and we should not be complicit in it.
There are good arguments in favour of the war. There are good arguments against. That, at this stage, is beside the point as the decision to take military action ultimately resides in Washington rather than the United Nations. Our task is one of damage limitation to our diplomatic relations with the UK and US, to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, and the human toll of such a conflict.
That task is best served by supporting the US and UK at the Security Council.
• Tom Wright is an Irish PhD candidate in International Relations at Georgetown University, Washington D.C.