A chara, - Why are Sinn Féin members opposed to the war in Iraq? It is because of their revulsion to violence? If so, this is a new-found principle given their refusal to condemn the IRA's campaign of terror before the ceasefire in the North and its vigilante activity and punishment beatings since.
Is it due to their anti-Americanism? If so, how do they reconcile this with their courting of the Irish-American business community for support, succour and funds? It is just an anti-British-army stance? If so, they are following the old mafia mantra: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend!" Is it because of their passionate belief in neutrality? If so, it is at variance with the philosophy they adopted in the second World War. Back then Sinn Féin wanted Ireland to support Germany.
Or is it, just like their Euro-scepticism, merely an exercise in opportunism? I suspect it is and believe they damage the cause they now embrace by the shallowness of their positions and the hollowness of their rhetoric.
There are many who are opposed to the war on noble and principled grounds. While I am not a pacifist opposed to war in all circumstances, I have grave reservations about the implications of such unilateral pre-emptive action for the United Nations and international order.
I am deeply sceptical about the motives of many both within and around the Bush administration. Only last week Richard Perle, chairman of the US Defence Policy Board and Pentagon advisor, was hailing the death of the United Nations. This has been a long-held goal of the Republican right in the US, long pre-dating September 11th. However, it appears that Perle et al. may have achieved a "two-for-one" in the same action by dividing and weakening the EU.
This will have serious and immediate ramifications for us in Ireland.
We need calm, rational and constructive debate as we face all these serious consequences. This is the time for real politics, not crass opportunism or hand-wringing. Regrettably, the tone of much of the comment to date indicates that such as debate is some time away. In last week's Dáil debate there was virtual unanimity among the party leaders as to the importance of the United Nations, yet we had to endure a sham fight over the use of Shannon, as if gesture politics could resolve the problems facing us.
Perhaps, when the real debate finally starts, we might concentrate on what really matters, rather than on the stuff of soundbites. - Is mise,
DEREK MOONEY,
Eglinton Wood,
Dublin 4.
Madam, - I think the debate over the use of Shannon facilities and Irish airspace in support of the war against Saddam Hussein missed a very important point. Writing as a citizen of both the Republic of Ireland and the United States and as the father of a US army major, I think there are aspects of this situation that are not being considered.
Clearly over 100,000 Irish and many Irish Americans protested against the possibility of the war. They were protesting against US (and particularly Bush administration) policy. This is their right, and possibly depending on the level of intensity, their obligation. It is clear that this opposition was noted in Washington even before the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, discussed it with President Bush. To protest against policy is to express one's opinions and to possibly affect the policy.
To interfere with the transport of logistical support to the soldiers is to attempt to interfere with operational matters. This could have the effect of extending the war and endangering both Iraqi and American lives. Such is not acceptable, and would not be easily or soon forgotten. Americans in general and Irish Americans in particular have a high regard for Ireland and support it in many ways. It could be potentially very harmful to poison that relationship by taking such action as barring American logistical support for the war from Ireland.
Possibly even those Iraqi refugees living in Ireland and described in your paper on March 19th would not support such a course of action. - Yours, etc.,
WILLIAM J. McLAUGHLIN,
Upland,
California,
USA.
Madam, - By choosing an invasive war over the peaceful settlement of disputes, the US and Britain have dealt a mortal blow to the United Nations as a political organ. We, as a UN Association, dedicated to promoting the aims of the United Nations, are appalled. The purpose of the Charter, to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" has been totally undermined. These are illegal acts of war that are being committed over Iraq.
Will some brave nation invoke the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and call the invaders to account for such breaches of their international obligations? - Yours, etc.,
MUIREANN Ó BRIAIN
(President),
CAITRIONA LAWLOR
(Vice-President),
Irish United Nations
Association,
Dublin 2.
Madam, - Credit where credit is due! May I pass on my praise to the following Irish Catholic bishops for their passionate opposition to the war in Iraq? Willie Walsh, Bill Murphy and John Kirby.
In the context of justified criticism of the Irish Catholic Church's handling of clerical child sex abuse cases, it is wonderful that these representatives have got it right on this occasion.
I hope to hear more of the same from these bishops, and others, on such an important moral issue. Yours, etc.,
PAUL SODEN,
Burns Side,
Dublin 9.
Madam, - The most worrying features of the Iraq débâcle are the strength of opposition to it, the manner in which Washington totally ignored that opposition, and Washington's indifference to the obvious lack of sincerity in its own public statements.
This war was supposed to be about weapons of mass destruction, but the US refused to wait for the UN inspectors to complete their work. The war was supposed to be about respect for UN resolutions, but when Washington could not get a resolution authorising war, respect for the UN no longer mattered.
Finally, and most revealingly, just before the start of the war the US declared that it would invade even if Saddam went into exile. Not even "regime change" would satisfy Washington. Iraq was going to be invaded no matter what it did and no matter what world opinion thought. This invasion is about control of Middle East oil. Everybody knows that, but that doesn't matter.
This war gives a wholly new meaning to the term "transparency", but this it does not matter. It does not matter that Washington's public statements are given no credence in the world community. Washington has got away with it despite the transparency of its position and despite world opinion. This can only serve as encouragement to future adventurism and illegality.
Washington's arrogance and its use of force in the Third World will inevitably lead to further terrorist attacks. These attacks, in turn, will be used as justification for even more violent measures by the US. The stage has even been reached where the fact that the Iraqi army is shooting back at foreign troops invading Iraq is being portrayed as either unjustified or evil.
We are witnessing the creation of a new world order in which public opinion, national sovereignty and international law will come a very poor second to the US military acting on behalf of transnational capital - while religious fundamentalist terrorists aid and abet the whole process. - Yours, etc.,
SEAN SWAN,
Belfast 10.
Madam, - The first victim of any war is the truth. The British and American networks have surpassed themselves in the propaganda war. We are fed untruths from journalists who are apparently "embedded", a new description from the Pentagon meaning all copy has to be signed off by the American military. On Sunday, one port town was seemingly "captured" eight times. It is only the from the few independent journalists that any genuine perspective is given. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN McCORMACK,
Kilpatrick,
Mullingar,
Co Westmeath.
Madam, - Embedded means "in bed with"! - Yours, etc.,
KEITH NOLAN,
Caldragh,
Carrick-on-Shannon,
Co Leitrim.
Madam, - It is incredible that President Bush demands a higher code of ethical behaviour from the Iraqi regime towards "illegal combatants" than his regime afforded those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. - Yours, etc.,
DAVID P. HICKEY,
Skerries Road,
Balbriggan,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - I find it very irritating that the television and newspaper pundits refer to the situation in Iraq as "the war". According to my dictionary war means fighting between nations - why not be truthful and say Iraqi invasion? - Yours, etc.,
PAT FOLEY,
Cherry Garth,
Mount Merrion,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - Blah blah blah peace and stability, blah blah blah freedom and prosperity, blah blah blah national interest, blah blah blah international community, blah blah blah regret the failure, blah blah blah long tradition of neutralit,blah blah blah and reiterate emphatically that I am not and will not be under any circumstances participating in this letters page. - Yours, etc.,
DAMIEN FLINTER,
Tullyvoheen,
Clifden,
Co Galway.
Madam, - Having read the transcript of the Dáil debate on Iraq, I have one simple question: "Who are we neutral against?" - Yours, etc.,
Father IGGY O'DONOVAN,
St Catherine's Parish,
Meath Street,
Dublin 8.
Madam, - "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." - Thomas Jefferson.
Apt or what? - Yours, etc.,
DERMOT O'SHEA,
Meadow Grove,
Churchtown,
Dublin 16.