The withdrawal by the Goodman group of its legal action against the State brings an end, after 16 years, to a shameful and still somewhat mysterious episode.
It was in September 1987 that the minority Fianna Fáil government led by Mr Charles Haughey decided on a huge increase in the State's exposure to the risks of trading with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, largely for the benefit of the beef processor Mr Larry Goodman.
That decision was fraught with ironies and had extraordinary consequences. It made Ireland in effect an important ally of Saddam Hussein at a time when he was using chemical weapons against the Kurds. It led to an epic tribunal of inquiry that in turn contributed to the demise of Mr Haughey and the collapse of two governments, in 1989 and 1994. Now, the withdrawal of the Goodman case confirms once and for all that these troubles were triggered by what was in effect a massive exercise in deception. It has been clear since the late Mr Justice Hamilton issued his report in 1994 that the State, then in dire economic and fiscal straits, had accepted the risks of doing business with Saddam in return for next to nothing.
Mr Goodman's huge contracts to supply beef to Iraq were underwritten by the Exchequer, supposedly because they would create good prices for Irish farmers and jobs for Irish processing workers. Mr Goodman's companies in turn guaranteed that the beef was the product of the Republic of Ireland. In fact, the vast bulk of it was simply bought from intervention cold storage and close to 40 per cent was from Northern Ireland and Britain.
Mr Des O'Malley did the public a great service in helping to uncover this scam in the face of official obfuscation and an even greater one in declaring the State's insurance cover for the beef null and void when he became Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1989. Yesterday's developments represent a tacit acceptance by the company that its claims of injured innocence were without foundation.
For this reason at least, the settlement of the case is welcome. Even more welcome, however, would be an explicit acknowledgement by the company that what it did was wrong. By any standards of corporate citizenship, it is not acceptable for a company to enjoy the benefits of being backed by public money while refusing to keep its side of the bargain. Yet by persisting for so long with a legal action in which it claimed to be the wronged party, the Goodman group continued to demand that the taxpayer stump up for its misadventures in Iraq.
If this rather sordid book is now closed, moreover, the public is left without a final explanation for the whole grim saga. It is not at all clear why a government allowed itself to be so easily deceived. The refusal to look too closely at what was going on suggests at best a naive trust in the company and at worst a willingness to turn a blind eye. We still do not know for sure which explanation is closer to the truth.