MARK GREENE,
Madam, - The delicious irony of Tom Wright's article, "Case for backing US is overwhelming" (Opinion, October 29th), is that it reads like a manifesto clearly outlining the reasons that Ireland must vote against the bellicose US-UK United Nations resolution.
Mr Wright correctly asserts that the impending Security Council vote is Ireland's sternest diplomatic challenge for many years. However, he then recommends that our response should be to capitulate in the face of naked imperial aggression.
He paints the picture of Ireland as a guest at a table where perhaps, given our nation's size and influence, we do not truly belong. Therefore like all good guests wishing to be invited back, we should ignore the occasional rants and delusions of our esteemed hosts, acquiesce to their requests, and pray that our next invitation arrives safely in the post.
This stance is moral and ideological cowardice and should be abhorred.
As a nation we must refuse to allow the UN to be used as a fig-leaf, merely providing powerful nations with forged pretexts for oppression, expansion and consolidation of their "interests". Are we to stand idly by while the US administration attempts to make a palimpsest out of the UN charter, allowing the universal ideals enshrined in that document to fade into obscurity while defacing it with notions such as pre-emptive war? - Yours, etc.,
MARK GREENE, Abbey Vale, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Tom Wright is so right when he urges Ireland to support the US/UK position on the UN Security Council, the crux of his argument being that we face a real, live situation in a real, live context. It's not a matter of how we would like things to be in a better world. It's a matter of how we deal with something that is going to happen: the US will take action against Iraq regardless of how the Security Council votes.
Cherishing a supposed historical neutrality or dislike of conflict is one thing, but risking the wrath of the only major power left in the world is another. Talk of US investment into Ireland being under threat if the Nice Treaty was voted down for the second time was, of course, just bluster. An executive sitting in Philadelphia is only interested in making money. To invest in a tinpot dictatorship where wages are low and natural resources plentiful, or in a free-market democracy where tax regimes are favourable, makes no difference to a multinational as long as the return on investment is profitable.
Internal or regional politics rarely influence such investment decisions - unless these politics attract the attention of the US administration.
But whatever about false fears of US companies fretting over our commitment to the EU, to actually cross the US government is an entirely different matter.
Having actively sought to sit with the big boys in the Security Council, we now find ourselves in a position which has a very real chance of affecting our close ties with the United States. This time, perhaps fortunately, it will not be a decision for the people to make. It is hoped, then, that when the vote in the Security Council is taken, the Government will be brave enough to overlook public opinion and attempt to regain some kind of authority over the way it conducts its business.
To maintain our good relations with the US, and to keep any action that does take place within a UN-sanctioned ambit, Ireland should provide one of the nine votes necessary for passing the resolution. - Yours, etc.,
DAVID MAHON, Rue Tenbosch, Brussels, Belgium.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - It is some time since I came across a political piece in your newspaper so morally bankrupt as the article by Tom Wright.
Self-interest, it seems, is the sole criterion in deciding whether or not to support a US/UK-sponsored resolution "laying the ground for military action against Iraq". Mr Wright further contends that Ireland should support whatever final US/UK resolution is put before the Security Council. In effect, we should give carte blanche to these states to take any action they consider appropriate, even though it is highly probable that it will result in the killing of numerous innocent Iraqi civilians.
In support of his stance he argues that support for such a resolution may result in Arab states allowing US troops to use their territories to establish a presence in western Iraq. This could be critical, he speculates, in preventing Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction against Israel which could - and wait for it! - "precipitate an Israeli nuclear response". No reference here, you will note, to sponsoring a UN resolution to send inspectors to Israel with a view to her divesting herself of weapons of mass destruction.
It is demonstrably acceptable for Israel to consistently ignore UN resolutions. It is imperative, if one accepts Mr Wright's thinking, that we blindly support any US/UK sponsored resolutions at the UN to take military action against any state as it is in "our interests".
For my part, I wish to dissent. - Yours, etc.,
NESSAN VAUGHAN, Parochial Avenue, Dublin 13.