JUSTIN KILCULLEN,
Madam, - The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, has stated in a number of forums lately that the current actions being taken against Iraq under UN Security Council resolution 1441 have nothing to do with oil and everything to do with weapons of mass destruction. This may be Mr Cowen's and the Irish Government's view of things but it is certainly not the view of the US Administration.
What is clear is that Saudi Arabia, home of the world's largest oil reserves, can no longer be regarded as a stable state in a position to guarantee a secure source of oil to the US over the coming decades.
Saudi Arabia is the home of Osama bin Laden and most of the September 11th hijackers. In the event of the royal Saud family being overthrown, a new regime is likely to be of a fundamentalist nature, deeply opposed to the United States.
It is, therefore, an immediate strategic imperative that the US secures an alternative source of oil. Where better than the source of the second largest reserves in the world, Iraq? The overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a US-friendly regime, coupled with massive investment in the Iraqi oil industry by US companies, will guarantee oil supplies for the foreseeable future.
Let us not so naïve as to think that French and Russian objections to this war are not oil-related also. An American victory over Saddam Hussein would see both France and Russia at a considerable disadvantage in terms of their own financial and strategic interests. They clearly are not at all pleased at the prospect of the US stealing the Iraqi spoils from under their noses.
So what will the next weeks bring us? Almost certainly, we will have a second UN resolution. Mr Blair needs it if he is to retain any measure of support from his cabinet and party. The French and Russians need it as a bargaining chip with the United States. Given guarantees of "a slice of the action", they will row in behind the US and drop any threat of veto. War will be declared and it will be legitimate in terms of international law.
Mr Cowen, by focusing on weapons of mass destruction and ignoring the cynical manoeuvring around oil, is also positioning Ireland and our Government in terms of our own perceived strategic interests, namely retaining good relations with the United States. This will be achieved by our giving full support, as members of the United Nations, to a war legitimised by the Security Council. It will be argued that it is our duty as a UN member to do so. The question of Shannon will thus be "resolved". It will be Ireland's contribution to a "legitimate" cause.
The real question is, however: is this a victory for political expediency over morality? How does our political and economic relationship with the US compare with the consequences of war?
There will be thousands of civilian deaths, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the pollution of water sources, the dislocation of millions of people, and the ceasing of the vital food distribution on which 50 per cent of Iraqis depend.
We are also faced with possible alarming developments in the Middle East, as the Arab people react to what will be perceived as - and in reality is - an act of aggression by the US and its allies.
Is Ireland prepared to disregard all this in order to maintain our economic interests by preserving good relations with this US administration? In the end such self-interested behaviour will be to our detriment.
As US Administrations come and go, the United States and its people remain. Our relations are between two nations, not with a particular government. Many in the US who oppose this war will welcome a moral and principled stand by Ireland. Our Government should at least respect the views of its own people, many of whom are deeply sceptical of and opposed to this planned aggression against Iraq and its people. - Yours, etc.,
JUSTIN KILCULLEN, Director, Trócaire, Maynooth, Co Kildare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - It is saddening to read the bleatings of the Saddam appeasers that get aired on this page. As yet I have not seen any of them propose one one decent alternative on how Saddam should be treated. The argument appears to be that the Americans might kill innocent civilians in attempting to bring down Saddam's despotic regime when he should be allowed to get on with the job himself.
Are the Green Party and others really naïve enough to believe that the senior members of the Ba'ath party just need to be reasoned with to see the errors of their ways and stop torturing and starving their own people and invading adjacent states? American foreign policy may not be even-handed, but if the US is going to do something about obviously dangerous states, Iraq is as good a place to start as any.
The ingrates that appear on this page seemingly forget that not only did America pay for and help build the fence we sit on but it has protected our freedom to sit on it for over 60 years. It is about time we got off it and remembered who our friends are. I don't believe they include Saddam Hussein. - Yours, etc.,
ROBERT COMYN, Teranure, Dublin 6
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - If Donald Rumsfeld envisages war as an extension of free-market ideology, as suggested by Fintan O'Toole (Opinion, February 4th), then I would suggest that those of us opposed to the war in Iraq should use the same ideology in our opposition to war, by choosing not to buy products produced by US or UK companies.
If the US and UK governments will not listen to the majority of people around the world, including those in their own countries, who do not wish them to go to war on their own and without full UN authorisation, perhaps they will listen to the corporations which back these governments if people power can put a significant dent in the profitability of those corporations. - Yours, etc.,
DOMINICK DONNELLY, Innishannon, Co Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - George W. Bush's capacity for hypocrisy beggars belief. While ranting ad nauseam at Iraq for defying the UN, he declares: "We [the US\] continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action against Iraq, alone or in a coalition of the willing".
Not alone is he himself willing to defy the UN, but he has thrown down the gauntlet in these arrogant words. Who gave Bush this "sovereign right"; I wonder? My dictionary defines the adjective sovereign as "excelling all others" and "having supreme power residing in itself or himself". One has to ask if Bush's words are the utterances of a sane level-headed leader, or a megalomaniac?
It is hardly surprising that the majority of the world's peoples and their governments are moving to distance themselves from this dangerous man and his collaborator Blair. The war they plan will in reality be a massacre of innocent people who have already suffered too much. Is their blood to be shed to satisfy the appetite of American oil men?
Nelson Mandela pulls no punches, and says it all: "Bush is acting outside the UN, and both he and Tony Blair are undermining the UN. . .All Bush wants is Iraqi oil."
Our Taoiseach and Government must heed the words of this man of peace and integrity, and cease collaboration with unprincipled warmongers. War planes off our soil, now. - Yours, etc.,
L.G. KILGALLEN, Crosthwaite Park South, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Put simply, over one million Iraqis have died since the close of the Gulf War as a direct result of international sanctions. To lift these sanctions would be to take a deplorable risk with a proven aggressor. Is not the sensible course of action to remove the element of risk? Saddam must be deposed.
With about 100,000 civilians dying yearly, oil, high-stress aluminium tubes, stagnant chemical warheads and political wrangling seem hopelessly unimportant. Those who can do so have a moral imperative to effect change in Iraq. - Yours, etc.,
SEAN KEYES, South Circular Road, Limerick.