DAVID COLLINS,
Sir, - I read Paul Soden's letter (February 9th)and I cannot agree with his criticisms of U2. Their performance at the Super Bowl was to celebrate a sporting spectacle and also in remembrance of the victims of the September 11th atrocity. One cannot take the leap in saying that by merely performing at this event the band is in some way supporting or approving of American foreign policy.
Secondly, to suggest that by not publicly condemning the deaths of innocent Afghan civilians is to be interpreted as suggesting that U2 condone their deaths, is ridiculous. Are we to believe that whenever U2 do not condemn the killing of innocent civilians, that this is tantamount to giving their approval to the deaths? It should be clear to all from the band's stance on numerous human rights issues that this is utterly fictitious.
Mr Soden ends by suggesting that U2 are more worried about record sales than human rights issues. Whatever the truth of this statement (they are professional musicians of course), it is only because of their status within the music industry that the band has such influence on world society to promote human rights issues.
A separate point to Mr Soden's criticisms of U2 is his implicit criticism of American foreign policy, concerning their involvement in Afghanistan. He states that the killing of Afghan civilians is equally wrong to that of the September 11th killings. Of course the deaths of innocent civilians of whatever nationality are equally tragic. But one must distinguish the motives and culpability of the people behind the deaths.
One cannot associate American foreign policy with that of the terrorists responsible for September 11th. The war on terrorism is a necessary evil, just like the second World War was. It is unjust to tarnish the motive for the war in Afghanistan as purely retaliatory. - Yours, etc.,
DAVID COLLINS,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.