Sir, - Michael McLoughlin (September 27th) heaps scorn on the critics of Partnership for Peace (PfP) - their arguments, he says, "beggar belief". Some of the arguments in this debate do indeed beggar belief, and those of Mr McLoughlin rank high amongst them.
He states that modern conflicts are "often accompanied by major human rights abuses and military might". It beggars belief that Mr McLoughlin does not go on to ask - who supplies this military might? Who armed the Indonesian regime to commit genocide in East Timor? Who armed Saddam Hussein? Who supplies weapons to the Turkish government to exterminate Kurds? The answer, in each case, is that it is the governments of the countries which dominate PfP. These practices are not "inconsistencies" in foreign policy, as Mr McLoughlin suggests. Rather, they are at the very heart of the foreign policies pursued by Ireland's prospective "partners" in "peace".
Further beggaring belief, Mr McLoughlin asserts that "PfP is a European response". It is no such thing. PfP is an initiative of NATO and, specifically, the United States government. Fintan O'Toole (The Irish Times, May 28th) has described PfP as the brainchild of a former US Secretary of Defence and a former Assistant Secretary. Mr McLoughlin, who has the temerity to label his opponents "misinformed", may or may not regard this as a good thing, but he cannot imply that PfP is an initiative subject to even the very limited democratic supervision available at the level of the EU.
The argument that Irish troops need PfP membership to equip them for service in various "trouble spots" is interesting, because defenders of PfP have always claimed it is not intended for operations outside its "home" region. That somebody does need to intervene in global trouble spots is beyond argument, but a properly reformed and resourced UN is the proper vehicle for such intervention, rather than a far from impartial Western alliance.
The tone adopted by the defenders of the PfP is remarkably abusive - witness Mr McLoughlin's reference to people who wish to "crow" about PfP and who engage in "self-indulgent marches". But the abuse probably betokens a certain defensiveness, which may help explain why proponents of PfP are so reluctant to put the issue to a referendum. - Yours, etc.,
Andy Storey, Chairperson, Afri, Grand Canal House, Lower Rathmines Road, Dublin 6.