This week the Taoiseach stated a position on Iraq which was clear, coherent and sophisticated. This is worth noting because he doesn't do this kind of thing all the time, writes Mark Brennock.
When it emerged late last year that Shannon airport was a major hub for the US military build-up in the Gulf region, the Government neither exposed nor explained what it was doing. When it became obvious that thousands of uniformed US troops were passing through Shannon airport, the facts and the explanation were dragged out over several months of obfuscation and stonewalling.
We were first told there was no great increase in the number of military planes using Shannon; and if there was they weren't all American; and if almost all of them were American they weren't all going to the Gulf; and if almost all of them were going there they had no weapons on board; and if they had they were only little ones with no bullets; and if they were all going to the Gulf after all it wasn't for war but to support UN Resolution 1441; and if they do end up at war well we'll see and we'll have a debate and we'll reflect but Kofi Annan supports our line.
As speculation about a unilateral US strike grew there was no great clarity, either. The Government would prefer a second resolution. It would like one, support one, favour one. It thought there should be one. It wished for one. Every formulation was used except the one demanded by the Opposition: We would not support or facilitate any war that takes place without one.
The Taoiseach then suggested that a report on the Government position in this newspaper 10 days ago had come from a drunk in a pub. The report said the Government was crafting all comments on Iraq to leave open the option of supporting a unilateral US-led war; did not intend to take any position that would put it in opposition to the United States; and saw no circumstances in which they could refuse the US the use of Shannon airport.
Mr Ahern gave a clearer insight into this in comments to RTÉ's Charlie Bird last Wednesday, which were edited out of his report for time reasons. "The leak was not true because positions move on and positions evolve," he said. He suggested that someone had told this newspaper what the position was on a particular day last week, but portrayed it mistakenly as a fixed position. "That might have been their assessment of where we were but they were already proved wrong when they saw the position we took last Monday."
A reasonable translation of this is that while that may have been the Government's approach to the issue 10 days ago, it has now shifted.
Last Wednesday the Taoiseach indicated that at least the Government's emphasis had shifted. In common with the other EU leaders, including Mr Tony Blair, he was prepared to state clearly rather than elliptically that the US would be wrong to go it alone.
Of course, it was easier to say that this week, after EU leaders, including Tony Blair, had taken this position and the Americans appeared to be moving in that direction. It was wise to say it, too, after 100,000 people had marched not just against war but, as the Taoiseach acknowledged, against Government policy, too.
That said, Mr Ahern's clarity in his RTÉ interview was unusual. He declared that a second UN resolution was not just desirable but was a "political imperative", and the Americans should drop their argument that it was not strictly legally required. The authority of the UN Security Council must not be eroded, he said.
Sure, he still didn't say what the Government would do if the US went ahead with a pre-emptive strike anyway. On Tuesday night the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, made it clear that all options remained open were the US to act without new UN sanction. "Our position in relation to such action being taken, as I have outlined, would depend on the circumstances. I do not believe it is in our interests to provide for a definitive position in relation to a hypothetical circumstance." The assessment of the "someone" referred to by Mr Ahern - that the Government was deliberately leaving all options open to allow it support pre-emptive US action if necessary - has not been proven wrong just yet.
But having directly disputed the US view, Mr Ahern gave a clear, honest reason as to why he was reluctant to make a pre-emptive threat to withdraw the use of Shannon. Ireland's economic dependency on US investment and political advantages from having good relations with the US were "facts and considerations". This was not the key issue, he said, but nevertheless an issue which could not be ignored. Some argue that these concerns are overstated. They may be right. The Taoiseach may be right. But now we can discuss it, because the Taoiseach has clearly explained his approach and his reasoning.
The weeks of woolliness served a political purpose. The Government avoided saying anything to annoy the US, and can now state a clearer position in the hope that the rest of the world is converging on that position. It might not have been a strategy of high principle, but may allow the Government escape with principles and interests intact - this time.