Ukraine war and ecocide
Sir, - Sadhbh O’Neill’s recent powerful and thought-provoking Opinion Piece, (“‘Ecocide’ is one of the hidden costs of war” Opinion, October 21st) skillfully exposes an overlooked consequence of war, connecting environmental destruction to human conflict.
The war in Ukraine, and indeed Gaza, has highlighted the dire need to formally recognise ‘ecocide’ as a crime under the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Ukrainian government has taken a courageous step in advocating for this initiative, citing the invasion via the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone as the first act of ‘ecocide’ in this reckless war.
The catastrophic Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 left an indelible mark on history, yet in February 2022, the world watched in horror as Russian troops recklessly advanced through the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, reawakening deeply buried radioactive elements and contaminating the air, land and water.
Never before in the history of the atomic age have nuclear facilities been used as weapons of war. They have, until now, remained globally off limits because of their lethal potential to destroy the planet. This was not merely an act of war… it was an act of nuclear terrorism.
READ MORE
Emboldened by their cavalier actions at Chernobyl, Russian forces moved onwards to one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants, and we now watch with bated breath as the occupied Zaporizhzhia falls further and further away from the confines of safety and regulation. The occupation and shelling of nuclear facilities has set a dangerous precedent in modern warfare, turning nuclear power plants into potential weapons of mass destruction for humanity and the environment.
Ecocide is not collateral damage; it is a targeted and systematic weapon of war. The radioactive contamination unleashed by military activity in Chernobyl has already affected thousands, with rising levels of long-lived radionuclides detected on civilians, particularly children, in heavily populated areas. This environmental devastation will have consequences for generations, further underscoring the urgency of holding perpetrators accountable.
Should the illegally occupied Zaporizhzhia follow Chernobyl’s deadly legacy, it will be millennia before its long finger of death and environmental degradation will snap and disappear.
The struggle to recognise ecocide as an international crime has spanned decades, with past conflicts, such as the Vietnam War, serving as grim reminders of warfare’s environmental toll. I strongly urge the Irish Government, and all nations, to support Ukraine’s initiative in advocating for the recognition of ecocide as a war crime. We can no longer afford to view nature as a silent casualty of war. The consequences of inaction are irreversible.
Today, as Ukraine fights not only for its sovereignty but for the preservation of our shared planet, it is our collective duty to amplify this call for justice.
We neglect the environment at our peril. The time to act is now. - Yours,etc,
Adi Roche,
Voluntary CEO,
Chernobyl Children International.
Presidential election and Irish unity
Sir, - Justine McCarthy presents an overly optimistic view in her piece (“Catalyst for united Ireland will be Jim O’Callaghan”, Opinion, October 31st) regarding the near approach of Irish unity following the recent presidential election.
If anything, the vitriol and sectarian abuse to which Heather Humphreys and her family were subjected during the same process surely serves to suggest quite the opposite.
No doubt those of “the other persuasion” have had their worst fears confirmed as a result, which will only harden resolve against reunification.
No matter how we dress it up, or certain parties may wish it, it seems we’re not quite ready for it yet... - Yours etc,
Marina Cusack,
Midleton,
Co Cork.
Sir, - Justine McCarthy asserts that Catherine Connolly’s victory has “brought the prospect of a united Ireland closer --(and)--shifted the Teutonic plates under this Island”.
This appears to be because it has made the election of Jim O’Callaghan as leader of Fianna Fail highly probable. The latter’s “repeated espousal of reunification” is contrasted with “Martin’s insistence on a precondition reconciliation”, and will, it is suggested, hasten the arrival of that Holy Grail.
While Article 3 of Bunreacht na hEireann does not specify reconciliation, it does specify the need for consent. Martin’s emphasis on reconciliation and the practical initiatives acknowledged by Ms McCarthy, are, to this observer, more in tune with the letter and spirit of Article 3, than simply repeating the mantra that the unity and independence of Ireland is the primary aim of any particular political party.
The writer also states that “O’Callaghan has been doing his own planning”. Planning is of course essential. Such planning must however realistically analyse and address those factors which currently contribute to a majority in NI being unwilling to contemplate unity with the Republic.
I see no evidence in the article, or elsewhere that we are ready for the internal debate on those issues which is required . On the contrary, rather like our approach to neutrality, we appear to believe that simply espousing a policy or objective, without being prepared to make the necessary efforts or sacrifices to achieve it, is sufficient.
If Jim O’Callaghan, who has in fairness referenced the need for debate, or any other political party leader, initiates such , they will indeed have done this Island some service. - Yours, etc,
Michael O’Dwyer,
Clogheen,
Co Cork.
Discussion on migration
Sir, - It was always inevitable that Fine Gael would turn to migration as a convenient distraction from its failures on housing, health and inequality (“Simon Harris defends comments that migration numbers in Ireland are too high” Irishtimes.com, October 31st). But if Simon Harris now wants what he calls a “discussion” on migration, he should explain what, precisely, he wants to discuss and potentially change.
He says general migration levels are “too high”. Does that include EU citizens whose right to live and work here is guaranteed by Ireland’s EU membership? Surely he is not proposing to end freedom of movement? Or is he suggesting that the health service, construction industry and other essential sectors stop recruiting workers from outside the EU?
If he doesn’t have answers to these types of questions, his remarks amount to little more than political posturing, an effort to sound tough without offering policies that would meet the wider needs of Irish society. If the Tánaiste wants an informed debate, he must set out what forms of migration he’s like to reverse or slow down, and why. The media, too, should insist that those calling for a “debate” spell out what exactly they propose to do. - Yours, etc,
Séamus White,
Stoneybatter,
Dublin 7.
A chara, - In January 1989, the British Minister Douglas Hogg stated that some solicitors were “unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA”. Three weeks later Pat Finucane was murdered by loyalists. It is widely accepted in Ireland that there was a consequential link between these two events.
Will there be a similar recognition of the responsibility political leaders bear for inciting violence in the wake of the horrific arson attack on a centre for international protection applicants in Drogheda on Hallowen night, only days after the Tánaiste described migration numbers as “too high”? - Is mise
Wendy Lyon,
Queen Street,
Dublin 7.
The Russian threat
Sir, - Thank you for Lara Marlowe’s clear sighted opinion on the current dangers lurking in Europe. (“Putin’s ‘flying Chernobyl’ carries a stark warning for Ireland”, Opinion, November 1st)
There seems little doubt that Mr. Putin is testing the EU/NATO’s ability to respond to the recent drone “dummy runs” over various European countries.
Yet there are still those who believe we are protected by our neutral status and “arrangement” with the UK, which of course is not true.
We must spend more on protective technology, and training the necessary personnel. - Yours, etc,
Mike Cormack,
Blackrock,
Co. Dublin.
