MICHAEL McLOUGHLIN,
Madam, - It is high time that the Government made its position on the impending conflict in Iraq crystal clear.
The apparent determination of the US and the UK to prosecute a massive conflict with potentially serious loss of life calls for a loud and clear statement from all countries concerned with humanity and the rule of international law. Such a declaration needs to be made in our national parliament as soon as possible.
Saddam Hussein is clearly one of the worst dictators in the world as can be seen from his use of chemical weapons in Halabjah in 1988. Those concerned with human rights and international law have long drawn attention to his regime. However we must examine whether the cure proscribed by those engaged in military build-up will be worse than the disease - for the people of Iraq, the region and the world. Furthermore, there is an existing policy which has been well articulated in the past by the UK government, namely a policy of containment which has maintained Saddam Hussein in a weakened position since 1991. What has changed in the past 12 months that war is suddenly so necessary?
The arms inspectors are carrying out an important task and will undoubtedly require more time to complete their work. A robust and effective policy on Iraq will provide this opportunity while pressure on the regime can be maintained through more humane and better targeted sanctions coupled with support for a democratic opposition. Unilateral regime change through military means is an unacceptable policy response and any country advocating it departs from international law and any pretext of being interested in workable solutions to the world's problems.
Now is the time for the Government to demonstrate there is some distinctive substance to our foreign policy. If war in Iraq is wrong, than any co-operation with it on our part is similarly wrong. - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL McLOUGHLIN, International Secretary, The Labour Party, Ely Place, Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - I want to express my sadness, anger, disappointment, even shame on reading your report of January 15th entitled, "Irish firms benefit from US preparation for war", with the names of some of the benefiting firms.
And do we continue to say we are neutral? Do we continue to say we are concerned about the starvation of millions in our planet today? Mr Barry Morris of Iona Technologies seems to be quite satisfied with the prospect of war, which "creates opportunities".
I consider it a shame that even one of our young scientists would even consider using their knowledge and talents to fuel the war machine. Is our education system teaching our young people any ethics? Are we passing on values that are life-enhancing, not death-dealing, to our young people?
Our Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is issuing scores of licences to firms which export components for commercial or military use. Mo náire oraibh for creating enemies out there for all of us and for contributing to the war industry. - Yours, etc.,
E. McCARTHY, Bancroft Road, Tallaght, Dublin 24.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - I am curious to why the anti-war protesters appear concerned only with American aircraft and troops at Shannon. Would they be angry at Iraqi aircraft refuelling at Shannon? Or would they be falling over themselves to give them tea and biscuits?
The American president always travels on a USAF aircraft flown by Air Mobility Command's 89th Airlift Wing. Does that mean that the visits by JFK, Reagan and Clinton breached our treasured neutrality? Does it mean that no American President can ever visit us again? What message will that send to America?
I have read the internationally accepted legal definitions of neutrality and none of it supports any of the protesters' allegations. Neutrality is applicable only during wartime; America is currently not at war so American warplanes, troops and munitions can freely use Shannon without affecting our precious neutrality.
If these protesters have a problem with imagined American imperialist wars of aggression, that is fine. But neutrality is not anti-war, nor it is pacifist, nor it is anti-military. If it were, then European neutrals such as Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland would not have conscription, large armies and armaments industries.
I kindly ask these protesters to stop misinterpreting and misusing internationally recognised definitions of neutrality to hide their rabid anti-Americanism. - Yours, etc.,
JASON FITZHARRIS, Carlow.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Among the many objections to an invasion of Iraq raised on your Letters page, the pragmatic one has been largely absent.
Leaving aside all moral and legal qualms, how will this help win the "war against terror"? Given that the most commonly cited reason for 9/11 and associated terrorist attacks is resentment of US domination in the Middle East, directly in Saudi Arabia and indirectly via Israel, extending this hegemony while creating further generations of potential martyrs seems distinctly counter-productive, unless perpetual war is desired (c.f. Orwell's 1984).
As anyone familiar with the history of this country knows, terrorism is rarely defeated by military means.
Or maybe this war is about oil after all? - Yours, etc.,
JOHN CATTANACH, Fairview, Dublin 3.