Brian Cowen said on radio on Sunday that Ireland was not in the pocket of America, writes Vincent Browne.
Ireland, on the Security Council, was insistent that only the Security Council should determine whether Iraq had failed to comply with a new resolution on arms inspections - and only then should the Security Council authorise further action to enforce the resolution.
Fine, as far as it goes - that is, if it goes even that far. But the crucial bit is: will Ireland vote for war if it comes to that?
The doubts about Ireland sticking to the line outlined by Brian Cowen on Sunday arise from newspaper reports from the UN headquarters. The US wants a resolution that includes the clause, "Failure to comply with and co-operate fully with the implementation of the resolution shall constitute a material breach (of UN Security Council mandatory resolutions)." The French want to insert the words "when established by the Security Council" after the words "implementation of the resolution".
The New York Times on Friday reported that Ireland was now going along with the US line, with France, China and Mexico remaining obdurate. Furthermore, reports from the US State Department suggest the same (the US State Department dispatches emails every day to anybody who signs up to receive them about the US and Iraq).
But the crunch issue is whether, at either the first or second stage, Ireland will vote for war if Iraq fails - or is seen to fail - to meet Security Council demands. It seems obvious that in such an event Ireland will vote for war. And it will do so without any reversion to the Dáil for approval for its stance.
Speaking at an open session of the Security Council on October 17th, our ambassador there, Richard Ryan, said a new resolution on Iraq "must make it clear that the council will take any necessary decision to enforce compliance, if Iraq does not co-operate as required".
The quote is from the edited report of that meeting, on the UN website. This report (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sc7536.doc.htm) presents just a precis of each ambassador's contribution, but from the tone of the precis of the Irish contribution, we were among the more belligerent.
Other ambassadors raised wider issues. Morocco's, for example, spoke of the need to await a report from the weapons inspectors before taking any other measure; Brazil said that military force should be considered only after all diplomatic measures had been exhausted; Switzerland raised concerns over the dangers to the civilian population; and Bangladesh said every possible effort should be made to avert war.
The tone of the Irish contribution, as reported on the UN website, is certainly more bellicose than those of many other delegations. Other members of the Security Council are likely to be more struck by our willingness to approve war than by our concern for the modalities of how this would come about.
After all, aren't we already involved in the logistical build-up towards war by the provision of Shannon Airport as a stop-over for American planes taking troops to the region?
And aren't we continuing to do that as America gives every indication that, irrespective of what the UN Security Council now decides or decides in the future, it is prepared to go to war in coalition with a few other nations?
George Bush said in Indiana on Thursday: "If the UN won't act and if Saddam Hussein won't disarm, for the sake of peace, for the sake of a free future for our children, we will lead a coalition of nations and disarm Saddam Hussein." (This comes courtesy of the State Department email service).
GARRET FitzGerald, in his new book Reflections on the Irish State, makes the point that, frequently, circumstances in politics create a tension between what is morally right and what is politically opportune. This is such a circumstance.
On the one hand, we still need American support for the Northern Ireland peace process (and they deserve our gratitude for the crucial part they have played since 1994), and we need goodwill in America generally to encourage further direct investment here. On the other hand, there is the moral point about war. There is no just cause here - nobody is being attacked, there is no plausible reason to believe that any attack is imminent, there is no injustice that doesn't prevail in very many other areas of the world.
The Iraqi position of a trade-off between arms inspections and the lifting of sanctions is not unreasonable, so arms inspections could proceed without any new resolutions or threats.
And war would mean the killing of probably tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands (including soldiers, who, incidentally, are people, too). It would devastate further the environment and infrastructure of Iraq, causing distress and terror to millions. We should have no part in that - and we should be saying so.
vbrowne@irish-times.ie