Sir, – It is welcome that most European countries will not join Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace”. While Taoiseach Micheál Martin appears to be leaving the door slightly open to joining, hopefully sense will prevail.
Any participation in a body that risks undermining international law, particularly international criminal law, and undermining the United Nations should not be supported.
The futuristic models presented by the US administration are a million miles away from reality. In Gaza, hundreds of thousands of people are living a daily hell, freezing in tents, with aid blocked by Israel. In the West Bank, communities are choked by demolitions, settler violence and checkpoints.
This board is not a peace mechanism. It is a classic Trump power play, placing unprecedented authority in his hands and allowing wealthy states to buy influence by offering permanent seats on the board for a reported $1 billion. It is an investment and real estate plan on steroids, ignoring cruelly the reality of victims of a brutal and unrelenting genocide. That is not peace.
READ MORE
There can be no peace and security without accountability for genocide. There can be no peace without addressing the root causes – decades-long occupation and apartheid imposed by Israel, with no real sanctions, on the entire occupied Palestinian territory.
For organisations like ActionAid, working with Palestinian women and families living through relentless bombardment, forced displacement and hunger, this matters deeply.
Palestine needs a long-term ceasefire, unfettered humanitarian access, accountability for violations of international law, and long-term political solutions grounded in human rights.
Tánaiste Simon Harris is correct when he says anything that seeks to undermine the UN should not be supported. That principle should now be matched with clarity and Ireland should say unequivocally no and instead redouble its efforts through the UN system. In addition, it can play its part at home by enacting the long-promised Occupied Territories Bill in this Dáil term. This matters now even more in the face of US plans.
Peace cannot be imposed from the top down, auctioned to the highest bidder, or chaired by a man who has consistently undermined international institutions. Palestinians deserve better than symbolic gestures. – Yours, etc,
KAROL BALFE,
CEO, ActionAid Ireland,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – Tony Blair’s decision to associate himself with Donald Trump’s so-called Board of Peace represents a profound moral and political failure.
This is not a serious peace initiative; it is a vanity project designed to launder the reputations of strongmen and opportunists under the language of diplomacy.
For Mr Blair to lend his name to it is to give a sham enterprise a veneer of legitimacy it does not deserve. The idea that a former British prime minister – who once spoke eloquently about multilateralism and the international rules-based order – might now find himself rubbing shoulders with figures such as Vladimir Putin or Binyamin Netanyahu in this context is genuinely stomach-churning.
More troubling still is the wider damage. Any credibility conferred on this body is, by definition, a rebuke to the institutions that actually exist to uphold peace and international law. It undermines Nato, sidelines the United Nations, and signals that power, celebrity and transactional politics matter more than accountability or principle.
Mr Blair has long argued that he understands the burdens of leadership on the world stage. That makes this choice all the more disappointing. By aligning himself with Mr Trump’s spectacle politics, he is not advancing peace; he is selling out hard-won norms and values for access and relevance.
History will not be kind to those who mistake proximity to power for moral authority. – Yours, etc,
GEOFF SCARGILL,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – The EU, having sucked up US president Donald Trump’s trade tariffs and patiently endured the disrespect and open hostility shown by him, had an opportunity to show by action that its economic interests are not tied solely to the US.
The Mercosur trade deal was a golden opportunity to do just that, and it was looking as if it might.
Step in, the European parliament. On Wednesday the parliament deliberated, then decided it could not decide and referred the Mercosur question to a court of justice.
It is difficult to imagine a more embarrassing demonstration of uselessness than this surrendering of autonomy. Looking on at this abject scene, is it any wonder that Donald Trump and his acolytes feel free to trumpet their disrespect for the EU? – Yours, etc,
DENIS HEALY,
Galway.
Sir, – I’m less concerned with Donald Trump confusing Greenland with Iceland than if he then goes on to confuse Iceland with Ireland. – Yours, etc,
DAVID CURRAN,
Knocknacarra,
Galway.
Diagnostic services
Sir, – As a general practitioner and GP expert witness, I wish to offer a clinical perspective on recent reporting concerning diagnostic services at St James’s Hospital.
From a patient-care standpoint, it is preferable that patients attending a tertiary hospital have their diagnostic imaging performed by teams embedded within that hospital’s clinical system. This supports continuity of care, timely reporting, and meaningful multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion – all of which are central to safe, effective cancer management.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, hospitals were required to make rapid, pragmatic decisions to maintain essential diagnostic capacity in the face of unprecedented disruption.
In oncology in particular, delays in imaging translate directly into delayed diagnosis and treatment, with potentially serious consequences for patients. Decisions taken at that time must be understood in the context of urgent clinical need rather than judged solely through a retrospective governance lens.
While issues of procurement and governance quite properly attract scrutiny, it is also important that public discussion does not lose sight of the underlying clinical rationale: protecting patient access to timely diagnostics within integrated hospital teams.
From the perspective of GPs referring patients daily, what matters most is that investigations are carried out promptly and discussed within the treating hospital’s MDT, enabling coordinated and informed decision-making.
Ireland’s hospitals continue to face rising demand driven an ageing population, improved cancer survival, and ongoing post-pandemic backlogs. Sustaining diagnostic capacity within public hospitals remains a patient-safety issue as much as an administrative one.
In that context, it is important that the actions of St James’s Hospital are viewed not only through a governance framework, but also through the realities of frontline clinical care during an exceptional period in our health service. – Yours, etc,
Dr MARY BELTON,
General Practitioner & GP Expert Witness,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Why Ireland is poorly governed
Sir, – My response to Fintan O’Toole’s interesting question “Why is this country so poorly governed?” (Opinion, January 20th) is that the political system needs to be changed. Let’s consider what this might look like. First, imagine a reformed Dáil with, for the sake of argument, one-third the number of existing TDs (for example, 58 as opposed to 174) focussing exclusively on national policy. To get elected, TDs would have to attract about 60,000 valid votes (compared with the existing 20,000).
The election strategy of dispensing favours to constituents through patronage would be less likely to work. Instead, candidates would have to attract voters based on their national policy ideas.
To entice the requisite talent, which may currently be reluctant to run for the Dáil, might require TDs to be paid more. Successful candidates would spend their time on national policy. The reformed Dáil would contain a different breed of politician from the majority of the existing cohort.
Instead of typically spending the majority of their week delivering patronage in their constituencies and outdoing other TDs (both from their own party and others) on local issues, the new breed of TD would devote their time to the formulation and delivery of national policy.
Second, O’Toole is correct to suggest reform of local democracy. Imagine a new decentralised system of sub-national government based on city regions, towns and rural areas, where the focus would be bottom-up regional development.
The current regional, county and city boundaries, which are completely inappropriate, might be replaced by five or six city regions coinciding with our main cities along with their commuting towns and hinterlands, plus two or three rural regions covering coastal and inland areas. These new regions (up to nine) would be controlled by elected local politicians with responsibility for a much wider range of policy areas, such as health, transport, climate and enterprise.
Bringing control and responsibility closer to the local citizens who wield it should result in better outcomes.
Clearly the aim of presenting these ideas of radical change is to spark debate. Change requires real political leadership to introduce constitutional referenda, which would undoubtedly be needed, and to follow through by inspiring others. It also requires a critical mass of citizens to be up for the challenge.
Yet, surely the gravity of the failures of our political system, in what is a very prosperous country, makes the case for change very strong. – Yours, etc,
EOIN O’LEARY,
Emeritus Professor of Economics,
Cork.
Sir, – Can I add a fourth reason to Fintan O’Toole’s analysis as to why Ireland is so badly governed?
It relates to the obligatory appointment of ministers from a very limited pool of TDs and occasionally senators and the fact the characteristics of a good TD are in many cases inappropriate to the role of a minister (other than for having the gift of the gab).
The solution would be to change the Constitution to allow some qualified, experienced “outsiders” to become ministers with suitable oversight by elected politicians. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN FLANAGAN,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Debating safety and cyclists
Sir, – Mary O’Sullivan (Letters, January 21st) and Alison Fergusson (Letters, January 23rd) call for the mandatory donning of high-vis by vulnerable road users.
I wholeheartedly disagree with their position. Scolding individuals for how they dress will do very little to improve their safety. The evidence just does not support such a measure.
The biggest killer on our roads is excessive speed and distracted driving. There is inadequate enforcement of the existing rules of the road in this country. Sensible measures that would have reduced fatalities such as a 30kmh speed limit in urban areas and the introduction of static red light cameras, were rolled back in the past few months. It seems that any measure to improve road safety but which may inconvenience drivers cannot be considered.
We will not see a reduction in deaths until we accept that every road death is preventable and start enforcing our existing legislation and improve our inadequate public transport and active travel networks. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN LEGGE,
Sandycove,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – It seems that mandatory hi-vis clothing for pedestrians, cyclists and, even more bizarrely, motorcyclists is now firmly established as the latest road safety panacea on The Irish Times Letters page.
No doubt its popularity is at least partly because it imposes no responsibility or inconvenience whatsoever on car drivers.
If one does not look, one does not see. I frequently encounter this despite my motorcycle being as well lit up as any car, day or night. – Yours, etc,
EOIN KIRWAN,
Dublin 22.
Sir, – The call from Alison Fergusson (Letters, January 23rd) for mandatory high-visibility clothing for cyclists, pedestrians and e-scooters reflects a regrettable but all too familiar pattern in our public discourse on road safety, namely the displacement of responsibility from those operating high-powered vehicles to those who are most vulnerable on our roads.
The notion that ever more garish clothing will compensate for distracted driving is a convenient fiction. No amount of fluorescent fabric can counteract the motorist scrolling on their phone or the driver travelling too fast.
What is required is not legislation mandating luminous attire, but a credible commitment to roads policing. Only last year the Crowe Report found members of An Garda Síochána openly acknowledged that roads policing had not been treated with sufficient seriousness within the organisation.
Without systematic enforcement of existing laws on speeding, dangerous overtaking, drink driving and mobile phone use, no additional burden placed on vulnerable road users will achieve meaningful safety gains.
Perhaps a compulsory module placing learner drivers on a stationary bicycle while a van passes at 50kmh would communicate, far more effectively than any pamphlet, the acute vulnerability experienced daily by those who travel without the protection of a steel shell. – Yours, etc,
SOPHIE McDERMOTT,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
Dry January
Sir, – I have huge admiration for people who take on the dry January quest at the start of a new year.
However, their task must be even more difficult this year as, in all my 70-plus Januarys, I’ve never seen a wetter one. – Yours, etc,
PAT BURKE WALSH,
Co Wexford.
