Sir, — Much of the writing on the so-called triple-lock arrangement seems to regard the United Nations Security Council as a neutral geopolitical arbiter somehow above or removed from the states that comprise it. In reality it is nothing of the sort, and was never intended to be so.
The investing of certain powers in the UN Security Council and the granting of vetoes to the five permanent members (P5) were intended to make it a form of supranational governor of world affairs, with the P5 effectively leading a new world order. The Cold War prevented this from coming to pass – arguably for the better, though that is a debate for the historians.
In any case, Edward Horgan (July 24th) is simply wrong to speak of the states “abusing” their vetoes. The ability of any of the P5 to block actions they feel detrimental to their own or the international interest is integral to the entire structure of the security council itself, and why UN-sanctioned military actions have been so rare. Even when they have been sanctioned (in Korea in 1950 and Iraq in 1990) the value of such actions in extending and defending the principles of the UN charter has been dubious at best, a matter Mr Horgan chooses not to address in his letter. His criticisms, and attempts to label certain international actions as “good” and “bad”, show a lack of understanding of the UN as an institution and a rather romantic view of international affairs that bears little relation to their conduct in practice.
Joe Ahern (July 21st) should be applauded for breaking down the highfalutin rhetoric of the “triple lock” and stating what it means in practice – giving Moscow, Beijing, Washington, Paris and London veto power over the ability of the Irish State to deploy its military forces as it sees fit, according to its own security needs and moral judgment. I can think of no other state, neutral or otherwise, that would regard such an arrangement as remotely tolerable. Neither should we. – Yours, etc,
DARAGH McDOWELL,
Chamberlayne Road,
London.