Protesters in Dublin and elsewhere in the world marched for quite varied reasons against any war on Iraq, writes David Begg.
In her article in this newspaper on February 20th, Ruth Dudley Edwards excoriated those who took part in the demonstrations against war in Iraq as "serving the cause of the Butcher of Baghdad" and being "the pawns of Marxists, Trotskyites, Islamo-fascists and cranks".
Most particularly, she asserted that we did not march in her name. This latter point is fair enough I suppose. But actually I don't think anyone marching purported to represent anyone but themselves.
The rest of her diatribe was a tad over the top. While indeed some of the people prominently associated with the demonstrations do hold Marxist or Trotskyist views, many others do not. I have had the privilege of knowing him for many years and I beg leave to doubt that Bishop John Kirby is a Trotskyist, for example. It is equally surprising that the most prominent speaker at the London rally, Charles Kennedy, managed to become leader of the Liberal Democrats if he is a closet Marxist.
And what does Ruth Dudley Edwards make of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia?
Speaking in the US Senate on February 12th he strongly attacked the policy of the administration observing that: "The doctrine of pre-emption - the idea that the United States or any other nation can attack a nation, that is not imminently threatening but may be in the future - is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defence."
Empirical evidence would suggest that it is not usual for those on the hard left to get elected to the US Senate.
I was very pleased to have had the opportunity, on behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to speak at the Dublin march. I am not by conviction a pacifist. I do not believe we can be neutral in all circumstances.
I approved of the US intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and said so in an article in this newspaper at the time.
Neither am I anti-American. As a matter of fact Congress enjoys a warm relationship with AFLCIO (the US umbrella trade union body). Nevertheless I am totally opposed to the war-mongering of the current US administration.
In my opinion the case for war must be made on legal, humanitarian and strategic grounds. The case has not been convincingly made, much less proven.
There is no precedent in international law for use of force as a preventative measure when there is no actual or imminent attack by the offending state. It is not clear to me how we got from September 11th to war with Iraq. Is Iraq any different today than it was a year ago? Attempts to prove a linkage to al-Qaeda have been ham-fisted.
Saddam Hussein is a very bad man, and I for one would shed no tears at his demise if that could be achieved legally and at reasonable cost. The trouble is that it cannot be so achieved and the horror of the human rights abuses of the regime would surely be surpassed by the horror of war.
Clare Short, the British international development secretary said in the House of Commons a week ago that there was a serious risk that the UN Food-for-Oil programme would collapse in the event of war. Oil fields could be set alight, chemical weapons released and the country split asunder. This is a potential humanitarian catastrophe. Sixteen million people depend on the UN Food-for-Oil programme. If it collapses they will be in danger of starvation. Add to this the likely destruction of roads and bridges and you can see that the challenge of mounting a humanitarian aid programme is formidable.
The UN estimates that war will displace four million people and large refugee encampments in neighbouring countries will also have to be provided for. The potential for death and disease is enormous. This is without mentioning the direct casualties of the war, which will be in hundreds of thousands. I include in this Iraqi soldiers and civilians and service men and women from the US and UK. It is a sad fact of war that those who do the fighting are generally ordinary working people.
Remember too that this is a country of 13 million children. Approximately 500,000 of them are acutely malnourished or underweight. These children are particularly vulnerable to disease and death should war occur.
It seems to me that the sheer scale of humanitarian risk outweighs the undoubted benefits that could be got by toppling the regime. Finally, I want to mention the strategic question. Even if one assumes a benign intention to replace an evil despot with a pacifist model democracy as an example to the region, one has to evaluate the prospects for success. There may be unintended outcomes. One such is the possibility that the region would be destabilised. Will war result in attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal?
Another potential unintended outcome could be the release of uncontrollable forces within Iraq itself. America's recent history of nation-building is not perfect. They went into Somalia in the early '90s with the best of intentions but they left it in chaos. What is the alternative, say the pro-war parties?
It is hardly a fair question given that the crisis was deliberately precipitated. Nevertheless, it has to be addressed. It seems to me that any serious project to stabilise the Middle East and Gulf must first bring the Arab-Israeli conflict to an end. It is the primary cause of instability and as long as it remains a festering sore there can be no military solution to the problems of the region.
An end to that conflict would release many possibilities for the establishment of human rights and democracy in the Arab nations that currently use it as an excuse for their own shortcomings.
The irony of this situation we are in is that the only winner if there is war will be Osama Bin Laden. He knows that every shot of an Iraqi child being pulled lifeless from the rubble will send hundreds of recruits flocking to al-Qaeda's banner.
David Begg is general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions