Sir.– Gay Mitchell claims there is “nothing more certain than that a united Ireland would entail full Nato membership” (Letters, April 22nd).
He calls Seán MacBride in evidence, but this is perhaps unwise. MacBride explicitly and repeatedly articulated a further opposition to Nato which had nothing to do with partition, and which remains chillingly relevant today. He told University College Galway on November 6th, 1982, that “many other considerations would now make our participation . . . totally unacceptable to the Irish people”. He declared that “our participation in any military alliance which proposes to use weapons of mass destruction . . . would involve us in the pursuit of policies which are both immoral and illegal, under international law”.
Mr Mitchell invokes our current security environment, but MacBride argued that Nato had augmented rather than abated our perils: “Aside from these considerations, I am quite certain that the Irish people do not wish Ireland to be made a prime target for a nuclear attack, which would be inevitable if we joined a military alliance with any of the nuclear powers.” – Yours, etc,
JOHN MAGUIRE,
Professor of Sociology Emeritus,
University College Cork.
Sir, – According to Gay Mitchell, even if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted to be part of a militarily neutral united Ireland, “there is no way the UK, the US or other Nato members (mostly EU states) would accept Northern Ireland leaving Nato”.
This is an extraordinary assertion to make.
Just as countries are free to apply for membership of Nato, they must be equally free to leave it. It is unthinkable that any country could be coerced to remain within an organisation if it didn’t serve their national interests. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN BUTLER,
Drumcondra,
Dublin 9.