GEAROID O CLERIGH,
Madam, - No one can reasonably accept at face value that the coming sequence of wars and upheavals in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the Arab are otherwise than linked to the aim of the US its allies of gaining control of sources of oil.
The trick of those who would deny this oil link is to keep attention fixed almost exclusively on the evil of the Iraqi regime.
Certainly Saddam Hussein Takriti is a loathsome and genocidal tyrant. Certainly he deserves to be removed. But the forces intent on his destruction have a separate, additional agenda; they are organised around that industrial-military complex against which General Dwight Eisenhower warned the American people on the eve of relinquishing his presidency.
These forces are currently in the ascendant, and the lack of a mention of oil in bellicose statements, or even in Security Council resolutions, cannot hide the relevance of "black gold".
Iraq, formerly known as Mesopotamia, was jerry-built by Britain after the first World War, as were Saudi Arabia and other despotisms within Britain's sphere of influence, on the ruins of former disparate provinces and portions of the defunct Ottoman Empire. In Mesopotamia's (Iraq's) case this allowed oil from Mosul to be exported through the Persian Gulf.
The inhabitants of the new and artificial entities rarely had a common identity but belonged to different, often mutually antagonistic, religious or ethnic communities. Many such communities were themselves cut across by the international borders invented by Britain - or by France, which was fobbed-off after the first World War with oil-less Syria and Lebanon by way of a Middle Eastern sphere of influence. This left France largely without a share in the action, something that still rankles.
Any new war in the area risks bringing the whole ramshackle edifice tumbling down. This is the more so because war can no longer end in a de facto compromise as did the previous Gulf War, but must be pursued to its conclusion in the hope of guaranteeing Western markets and investments, gaining military glory and controlling oil supplies.
In this scenario the major losers will be the civilian populations. Modern war casualties are almost 90 per cent civilian. The unfortunate survivors will face disease and famine, not to mention communal disintegration and the active hostility of rapacious or frightened neighbours, many of them destined to become victims in turn.
Even states far-removed geographically from the areas of conflict will observe the different treatment accorded to Iraq, suspect in respect of weapons of mass destruction, and North Korea, which openly possesses them. The obvious lesson to be drawn by many non-Western states will be: Let those who desire security, obtain nuclear or similar arms. The more such weapons proliferate, the more likely they are to be used.
For the above reasons it makes little difference whether the train of destruction, already decided on, is set in motion by unilateral American action or is carried into effect following a UN Security Council resolution. The latter, to quote a phrase attributed to Senator Edward Kennedy in another context, cannot be more than "transparent camouflage", designed to "legitimate" a war whose consequences it cannot prevent.
War, once started, will gather its own momentum. Its consequences will be beyond the control of whatever Sorcerer's Apprentices initiate it. The consequences are most likely to include widespread hatred of the West, along with a long-term rise in fanaticism and terrorism.
Dreadful as it is to leave the Takritis in power in Iraq, any alternative can only be worse, unless it be modelled on slow attrition and the aid to subject populations, found useful in the cases of the Soviet Empire and apartheid South Africa.
Ireland should not participate in any action involving war nor facilitate it, even if a UN acquired "legitimacy" should prevent actual opposition. - Yours, etc.,
GEAROID Ó CLERIGH, (former Consul General in New York, former Ambassador to Iraq, retired), Charlton Lawn, Dublin 14.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - The general thrust of the Franco-German proposal on Iraq is to be warmly welcomed. It holds out a hope for peace in the midst of the headlong dash to war. Bush and Blair have repeatedly claimed that opponents of war have no alternative to offer. Now we have an alternative clearly stated by the current chair of the UN Security Council and one of its permanent members, with Russia (another permanent member) also looking likely to support the initiative.
The proposal calls for some military personnel to accompany an enlarged inspectorate in carrying out its task. Choosing such military personnel will require great care, and the ideal would be to select troops from trusted, neutral countries.
Irish troops have a proven track record as trusted peace-keepers in the Middle East so what a pity it is that our Government's recent policies have disbarred them from playing such an important role! - Yours, etc.,
HARRY McCAULEY, Maynooth, Co Kildare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - To go out in the streets and say "No to war" is nonsense. Why? It was only by war that it was possible to win the battle against the Nazis and Hitler.
Saddam started killing at the age of 17. He killed members of his family, his friends, and he used chemicals to kill other Iraqis. He has weapons of mass distraction and he is ready to use them against Iraqis any time and anywhere. He is a real threat to international security.
Saddam is saying "No to war" to keep himself in power in order to kill more Iraqis.I don't trust him, and neither should the free world and real lovers of democracy. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, and that is the reality in Iraq. For more than 30 years, Iraqis have faced the worst dictatorship in the history of the Middle East. No freedom, no democracy.
Saddam won the last presidential election by 100 per cent. Every single Iraqi wishes to participate in even just one clean election. If you say "No to Saddam", you will be killed, and all members of your family and maybe your tribe as well.
Iraqis are united against any occupation, the killing of innocent people, the destroying of infrastructure, the rise of a new general or a new form of dictatorship. Nevertheless, they want change. They don't care who gets rid of Saddam and his gang or how, whether it is Russia or America by diplomacy or war. It is easy for people who haven't faced the crimes of this dictator to say "No to war". But let us learn to listen to the victims. The Iraqis inside are the victims and what they want is the removal of Saddam.
To say "No to war" without mentioning the role of Saddam and his brutal regime in bringing this misery to Iraq is unfair and unjust. We have to say "No" to war on the Iraqis! "Yes" to war against Saddam and his gang!
The Iraqis in the north and south are ready to rise up again. All they need is constitutional support from the international community prevent the regime from using its weapons of mass destruction. Then it will take only a few days to establish a new democracy in Iraq. - Yours, etc.,
KHALID IBRAHIM, Spokesperson of the Iraqi Human Rights Organisation, PO Box 5375, Dublin 1.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Niall Andrews (February 10th) insinuates that those who currently campaign against the impending war on Iraq do so for purely anti-American reasons - an accusation I find as bogus as it is tiresome.
Mr Andrews draws this conclusion by comparing the present amount of interest in the Iraqi situation to that shown during the "many years" he spent protesting against sanctions outside the American Embassy, etc. Where were the peace protesters then?, he wonders.
Perhaps, as a politician, he should have made a similar effort to publicise his demonstrations as the anti-war movement does now. I certainly would have attended, but I did not hear a word about them at the time. Does that make me anti-American?
I am very pleased to see Niall Andrews add his voice to those opposed to the war, but I wish he had expressed himself in a less divisive manner. The issue is too important to be used as a "holier than thou" stick with which various campaigners can batter each other. The opposition to war shown by Irish people illustrates how the compassion of the general public will come to the fore once an injustice has been brought to its attention. - Yours, etc.,
GARRET SHANLEY, Royal Terrace West, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that, if Iraq is invaded, between 500,000 and 600,000 Iraqis will be forced to flee. The UN World Food Programme predicts that refugee numbers could run into millions.
A refugee crisis is inevitable. Neighbouring countries such as Turkey and Iran will receive the bulk of the flow and they are already preparing for the worst. However, the entire international community must assist in the immense humanitarian relief effort that will need to take place.
How can Ireland help? Last Wednesday the Dáil joint committee on justice, equality, defence and women's rights welcomed Ireland's commitment to an EU measure for the temporary protection of displaced persons, which sets out a pre-ordained legal and social order to deal with a "mass influx" of protection-seekers. While temporary protection does not offer the ultimate solution, this debate is timely in light of predicted events.
It is hoped that Ireland's repeated commitment to sharing responsibility for the world's refugees will help to alleviate the humanitarian crisis that will surely unfold. - Yours, etc.,
URSULA FRASER, Refugee Officer, Amnesty International, Fleet Street, Dublin 2.