Sir, - We agree with Peadar Kirby (World View, May 1st) that "militaristic approaches to international security" are inappropriate, as is evident in the Balkans today. We also agree with Mr Kirby when he says that Ireland has an important role to play in the development of a new concept of security based on development and justice, rather than militarism.
However, we do not agree that the NATO-led Partnership for Peace (PfP) is an appropriate forum for Ireland to promote such an agenda. Surely, given our historical experience, we can come up with a more imaginative and constructive approach to building security and stability than entering into partnership with a military remnant of the Cold War.
The tensions that have reopened with Russia over the bombing of Serbia point to the urgent need for an independent and non-aligned space where opposing sides in a conflict can feel that their case can be presented and heard. Ireland could provide such a space and also, given our history of colonialism, be a focus where the concerns of countries from the South could be heard.
We do not believe, as Peadar Kirby suggests, that this is an isolationist position - we want to see Ireland pushing an agenda of justice and peaceful conflict resolution wherever there is an opportunity for Ireland to exercise meaningful influence. We do not believe that PfP provides such an opportunity. Rather, participation in PfP endorses the militaristic conception of security that Peadar Kirby criticises.
There will obviously be differences of opinion about these matters between people who share basically the same objectives. A referendum on the issue would be the best way of encouraging a widespread debate in which all views could be expressed and constructively debated. - Yours, etc., Joe Murray,
Afri, Lower Rathmines Road, Dublin 6.