Funferal

An open letter to An Taoiseach – Thoughts from the Mid-West #4

A Chairde Gaoil,
Greetings to you all. Hope you are all keeping well.
It has been a while since my last missive from the wilds of Illinois, and this special St Patrick’s Day update is somewhat different. Sent as the world waits on the eve of war, I am forwarding an open letter which I have sent to to An Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern:
A Chara,
It has been obvious for almost a fortnight that our national holiday will be a pivotal day in the drive towards war. Given the attention paid to this day in the United States and worldwide, the symbolism that would attach to an intervention by the Irish state is obvious. Unfortunately, the opportunity is being lost. And it is being lost because our government is in an all too familiar position – with its head in the sand.

I am proud to be Irish, to have the opportunity to represent my country here at the University of Illinois, in the heartland of America. The fondness for, and interest in, Ireland is gratifying, and reflects common bonds (I’m now used to hearing “I’m Irish too” said with a strong Chicago accent) and our reputation as a creative, fun-loving people.
Over and over people ask me about Northern Ireland, advice on where to visit, and of course Guinness. I’m proud to be able to tell them about the Hugh Lane Gallery, the Phoenix Park, the scenery of Cork and Kerry. I’m proud to have persuaded several to add Galway to their itineraries and to have informed others about Irish music or literature.
Over and over, however, I find myself, when talk turns to politics, embarrassed by the actions of my government. At first it was having to explain the intricacies of the X case and our 5 referendums on abortion in the last 20 years. Then it was explaining that we had a self-professed gambler as Minister for Finance (that raised some laughs). Lately though, and most depressingly, I’ve had to outline our government’s stance on the prospect of war in Iraq. Or rather its lack of a stance.
When the opposition looked to discuss the issue of having military aircraft landing and refuelling at Shannon, the government declined. Was it because the government was backing the concept of an attack, and wasn’t open to persuasion? Was it because it was not a proper matter for Dáil Éireann to discuss?
No: it was because these flights were just normal traffic. There was no war in Iraq, there was no expectation of one. Should the US actually attack Iraq, then at that point, and at that point only, would debate occur. I will leave to one side the fact that the attack has already begun, with ever more aggressive bombing within the ‘no flight zones’ and incursions by American special forces. Similarly we can set to one side the futility of a debate on allowing landings and over-flights after all the flights have taken place (what are we going to say – “Please bring those troops and bombs back to the US, and resend them via another country”?)
There is a much more fundamental philosophical point at issue here. Opposed as I am to the idea of pre-emptive attacks, I would have thought that the merits of pre-emptive debate were self-evident. Dr Robert Muller has pointed to the current unprecedented “global, visible, public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war.” Although I would prefer if such a dialogue were not necessary, the truth is that it is needed. We are facing core issues about the future of international relation, international law, and the resort to violence. Yet our government has no discernible view. We are facing the immediate prospect of tens of thousands of deaths. Yet our prime minister shows no genuine interest.
We were one of the countries to approve resolution 1441, now to be used as the legal basis for an attack, contrary to the promise of our government at that time that another resolution would be needed. Yet our government shows little concern. The most forthright statement I have heard from the government was an admission that “Ireland cannot engage in support of military action in the absence of a second UN resolution.” This statement, while welcome, is both too weak (why “not engage in support”? why not “oppose”, “condemn” or “work to prevent”?) and at odds with government action (facilitating military activity in the absence of a second resolution).
All of us, but particularly our representative politicians, have a duty to engage with the moral questions being raised by current events. Some have concluded that an attack has moral justification. I think they are in error, but they have at least addressed the issue. The stance of the Irish government – staying on the fence for fear of … what? unpopularity? – is a morally bankrupt one.
As an Irish man studying in Illinois, I can tell you, Mr Ahern, that many of the American people are critically engaged in examining the drive for war. From the reports I get from Ireland, I know that many of the Irish are doing the same. What is needed from you is a sense of leadership – a move to foster debate on this vital issue. You have already squandered one chance in moving to adjourn the Dáil at this important time.
We cannot say, however, that it is now too late. You must change your approach, and help to build an inclusive discourse on this issue. More than that, I believe that the Irish are well placed to speak of the dangers of a resort to violence. I urge you to speak up and oppose this dangerous rush towards war – use the symbolism of our national holiday being used as a crucial date in the war drive. The Irish people, and the people of the world, deserve no less.
Is mise,
Andrew Ó Baoill