As one of those who studied and taught in the United States, I am well aware of the generosity and rich diversity of that society.
I experienced it at first hand from as far back as the Sixties when I lived in the mid-west. Even then, at the height of the Vietnam War, it was important to draw a distinction between critique of US foreign policy and what was described crudely as "anti-Americanism".
It is the best gift of friendly nations to exchange opinions on matters of moral and political import with mutual respect for what is perceived and accepted as the common pursuit of shared values.
The appalling acts of terrorism of September 11th have been condemned unequivocally by all shades of political opinion in Ireland. One would need a heart of stone not to be moved by the hurt and loss of the relatives of those who died in New York and Washington.
Again the heroism of the firefighters and paramedics, hundreds of whom died in the line of duty, has been recognised. It is right that it should be so, that they should be honoured and admired.
What was most moving, however, was the statements of those relatives who stressed that the perpetrators should be brought to justice and that any retribution which brought grief and destruction, such as they were experiencing themselves, to civilians in another part of the world was not what they sought.
To describe those, however, who support the letter and spirit of international law, as appeasers who would have endorsed Hitler or who deserve a place in Dante's Hell as Niall O'Dowd suggests is outrageous.
The United States is entitled to defend itself. It is, however, important in such a defence that the principles of the United Nations charter, the protections of the Geneva Convention and the full range of securities applicable to civilians, be respected.
The United Nations is built on the principle of respect for International Law by the most powerful members of the UN as well as the weakest.
It is reasonable surely to ask that actions against terrorism not fall outside the parameters of international law. To ask that necessity, proportionally and external verification of military actions be observed as required by article 51 of the UN charter is not anti-American.
It is rather to vindicate what has been built up as our shared human alternative to war and militarism.
Ireland as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, elected by the votes of 130 nations, has a special responsibility to be scrupulous in respecting that mandate.
We must be active in strengthening security by addressing the roots of terrorism in poverty, exclusion, absence of basic rights and the degradation caused by unfair trade and crippling debt.
This is not offered as an alternative to pursuing the perpetrators of terrorist actions, both civilian and state, and bringing them to justice. Are we not reasonable also to ask why the proposed international criminal court is not supported by the most powerful country in the world?
Are we to accept without question the conferring of immunity on those who serve in the military and the imposition of sanctions on those who would invoke the authority of such an institution as the International Criminal Court?
As we witness superior air power being chosen as an alternative to diplomacy in the Middle East is it not a time to make the case for international law and the dialogue of diplomacy however difficult?
To reduce the position in which we now find ourselves to trading simplicities is surely dangerous. The position of a country like Ireland on the Security Council is one of moral influence. It is surely not required that we suspend our critical awareness of the requirement of international covenants. To take such a position cannot be equated with being soft on terrorism.
There is of course a section of opinion that suggests we should just tell ourselves that small countries do not count, that we should just pull our forelock before the powerful. Such a view is not consistent with support for the United Nations which is now more necessary than ever.
Irish people are also anxious to be consulted when decisions are taken in their name. It is a basic requirement. The public ask for distinctions to be made between a Untied Nations force, a United Nations-led force and a United Nations mandated force.
The distinctions are not academic. The compliance with international law made possible in each case is different. Irish people are also anxious and willing to participate in public discussion of foreign policy.
We may indeed be at a crossroads in relation to foreign policy here. We can acquiesce and drift in an atmosphere of increasing militarism or we can be vigorous in seeking to vindicate and extend international law.
To choose the latter is an option also open to those who frame the foreign policy of the United States.
Indeed it is a most appealing prospect if the resources now committed to armaments - $864 billion in 1995 of world expenditure compared to $16 billion on the four preventable diseases - were released for the structural tasks of eliminating the basis of conflict.
If the most powerful countries commit themselves to the basic protections of international law and related institutions such as the International Criminal Court, it is surely our best guarantee of a world free from human loss and the destruction of war.
To believe in this is neither to be an appeaser nor to be crudely "anti- American". There are very many in the United States from whom we never hear on Sky television or CNN who support such values.
I can assure Niall O'Dowd of my sincerity in sympathy and solidarity with the victims of terrorism. This is not only entirely consistent but required by the values I have outlined.
Finally, I am also sure that I am not alone in expressing my revulsion to the idea expressed by a columnist in The Irish Times (An Irishman's Diary, Wednesday, December 12th) that war is a reality where "the rules binding civilisation together are dissolved, all shared commandments are suspended, all common civilities abolished, all declared decencies dissolved".
The Geneva Convention was brought into existence to protect us from such savagery. I know that there are many in the United States who will agree with such a view.
Michael D. Higgins is the Labour Party spokesman on foreign affairs