Sir, - Michael McLoughlin (April 15th) takes me to task for my piece on Partnership for Peace (Opinion, April 9th). First, he defines neutrality as being equivalent to a country's ability to defend itself without reliance on external forces. This is an inappropriate conception in a world where the major security threats arise from factors such as environment destruction and resource scarcity. Protection against these threats does require international co-operation, but not military co-operation or military self-reliance. Therefore, to argue that "a strong arms industry would be a natural development of a real neutrality" is outdated. National security cannot be promoted by the promotion of international insecurity.
As for the alleged absence of links between PfP and NATO, Russia has suspended its PfP membership in protest at recent NATO actions, which implies at least a Russian perception of a link. In fact, unlike Mr McLaughlin, NATO spokespeople have no problem acknowledging the NATO-PfP link. Given that connection, it seems questionable to suggest that PfP be responsible for the co-ordination of "swift humanitarian action" in the wake of the Kosovo crisis. Under the circumstances, is a NATO-associated body the best agent to undertake such humanitarian action? And why could a reformed UN not do at least as good a job?
Mr McLoughlin makes a good point about Austria's membership of PfP not limiting its willingness to criticise NATO. I would argue that the fact of NATO-PfP association makes that a particularly courageous action on Austria's part. - Yours, etc. Andy Storey,
Chairperson, Afri, Lower Rathmines Road, Dublin 6.