It is a matter of supreme national interest for Ireland to ensure that the United States makes the right decision in its reaction to the recent murderous paramilitary or terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Whereas most other Western European countries will be consulted through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Ireland will not have that input. Yet no domestic decision can have anything approaching the consequences for Ireland that this American decision can have.
The first World War was started as a direct result of a paramilitary act -- the asassination by Gavrilo Princip of the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. In symbolic terms for Austria-Hungary, this was the equivalent to an attack on the World Trade Centre.
The assassin was an Austrian subject, of Serb ethnicity, who had been armed in Serbia proper, and smuggled back across the border by a Serbian nationalist organisation. Serbian military and border guards were complicit in this, but there was no certaint y about the knowledge or involvement of the Serb government itself.
Some Austrians wanted an immediate attack on Serbia, others wanted to take a more deliberate course. They got their way.
It was 25 days after the assassination when Austria finally issued the ultimatum to the government in Belgrade. It made eight demands, including that Serbia desist from all propaganda and support for Serb separatists within Austria-Hungary, and also that Serb officials implicated in the assassination be arrested, interrogated and tried. The final demand was that Austrian officials take part in the judicial proceedings on Serb territory.
Serbia was prepared to accept all the Austrian demands except the last one, because it felt that would impinge on Serb sovereignty, a principle on which the nationalistic and recently independent Serbs were especially sensitive.
Because of that difference of opinion, one country after another tumbled into war, taking either the Serb or the Austrian side. Some 49,000 Irish people died in that war. Its original cause was soon forgotten as the slaughter escalated.
The real risk today is that the conflict triggered by the attacks on America will escalate, with a clash between the West and Islam as a whole. This is the sort of outcome for which American opinion has been prepared by the writings of Samuel P. Huntington, whose book, entitled Clashes of Civilisation, was described by Henry Kissinger as "one of the most important to have emerged since the Cold War".
The idea of collectively punishing the civilian population of Afghanistan or Iraq for the activities of terrorists, some of whom may have emerged from their midst, would involve hurting many people, some of whom are just as innocent as the New York and Washington victims. It would involve a descent to the level of the terrorists themselves.
Israel has learned that when one is opposed by an adversary that is militarily weak, but politically desperate, striking at his military targets is almost futile. Israeli attacks on Palestinian police buildings have not stopped the Intifada, because the Palestinian Authority is so weak that in most circumstances it does not have the authority or the means to turn the Intifada off. That is not the sort morass America should want to get itself and the world into on a wider scale.
It is reasonable for a victim state to want to punish another state which harboured terrorists. The difficulty is in getting evidence of official complicity that is sufficiently solid to distinguish this from other cases where other states, including even the victim, may have supported freedom fighters.
This difficulty arises because there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Ireland has a fairly clear position in our own Constitution. All paramilitaries, whatever their objects, not sanctioned explicitly by the State itself, are illegal on our territory. Many other European countries have no such definition and no basis, therefore, for making demands on others.
Extradition laws for terrorists are also very weak. In many countries all that is needed to avoid extradition and trial is to claim a political motive for one's terrorist act.
Americans rightly demand action in response to what happened. Their anger is intense. Their feelings of affront to their openness and generosity are really strong. The world understands this.
It is for that reason, that this week America is in the uniquely strong position of simultaneously having both overwhelming military power, and also overwhelming moral power.
America should use this strength to the full. It should consider using its moral authority before it resorts to the application of its military power. It could, I suggest, demand that all countries send plenipotentiaries this month to a specially convened, time-limited, world conference on terrorism to agree on specific global measures with immediate effect to combat terrorism, such as: the right of Interpol to intervene directly within states in respect of certain offences; a worldwide system of extradition for terrorism or an international court to try terrorists; and the seizure of financial assets of terrorist organisations.
America could focus its power on getting speedy application of such an agreement by "suspect states".
This approach would give all states the opportunity of taking ownership of the battle against terrorism. It would not preclude other options, but it is the option most likely to make further terrorist attacks, from whatever quarter, least likely. It would change the balance of international law to tilt it against terrorists and in favour of legitimate states.
Because of its provisions on extradition, it would be the option most likely to isolate and bring to justice the real culprits for New York and Washington.
John Bruton is a Fine Gael TD for Meath and a former Taoiseach