Sir, - Edward Leane (July 1st) gives a famous quotation from an American Indian chief: "The white man had not kept any promise but one: he promised to take our land and he took it." However, Mr Leane is incorrect in ascribing this to Sitting Bull - it was said by Red Cloud, another great Sioux war chief. An understandable mistake, but it rather nullifies his point. For Red Cloud actually won a war against the United States (the "Red Cloud War" of 1866-68), then made a treaty which he kept for the rest of his life.
He made several trips to Washington and was an articulate spokesman for the Sioux, as the quotation shows. Red Cloud died in bed in 1909, long after the defeat of the Plains Indians. Thanks to Red Cloud (as well as Sitting Bull), combined Sioux reservations in the USA are greater in extent than many states, and the Sioux language is still taught to Indian children. A greater contrast with the trio of Saddam Hussein, Gadafy and Milosevic could not possibly be imagined. Two of these men have led their countries to destruction in the self-consciously heroic pursuit of national (and personal) aggrandisement. If the dismal trio above could be brought to follow any man's example, it should be that of Red Cloud.
But on another level, the comparison is completely misplaced. Red Cloud's experience was part of the awful treatment meted out to an internal minority. Currently it is Milosovic and Saddam who stand indicted on this count. Even Gadafy drives the best and the brightest of his country abroad as refugees. Where is the Red Cloud of Kosovo, of Kurdistan or of the hapless Arabs of the Iraqi marshes? Yet, it appears that, for Mr Leane, the three dictators set some sort of standard of heroic resistance. This is fairly typical of the nonsense recently written on this page concerning American foreign policy, often by people who should know better.
US foreign relations has four absolutes: (1) oil supply; (2) a benign protectorate over Western Europe and East Asia; (3) the Monroe Doctrine; and (4) preservation of Israel. None of these is particularly imperialist or colonial. Ireland has benefited immensely from being in the American "zone".
Can we criticise the US for buying oil from dictators when we are eager to sell beef (or anything) to the same dictators? Can we pretend that we are not engaged in the "arms trade" when no dictator can run an army or police without food products, PCs, computer chips or pharmaceuticals - all items manufactured and sold abroad by us?
The "American system" is neither utopia nor "the end of history". Parts of it are cruel and rapacious. Aspects that need change for the better - the role of UN, the adverse effects of globalised trade, arms trafficking - can all be addressed by working within the international structures that exist today.
A small, democratic state like ours should drop its hypocritical aspiration to international sainthood (called "neutrality" or "anti-imperialism") and begin to work for change within the system. - Yours, etc.,
Toby Joyce, Carrick Hill, Galway.