Sir, - Mark Brennock (January 23rd) sees a major conflict between the DL position on the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the issue of participating in the "Ifor" operation in Bosnia. He quotes an editorial in Times Change which was highly critical of the manner in which the UN efforts to achieve a solution there were usurped by NATO.
That editorial, however, also made it clear that, despite the massive media hype to the contrary, Ifor is not a NATO operation, but a UN OSCE operation using NATO forces. In fact, many of the forces operating under Ifor are from countries which are members of neither NATO nor the PfP. The point here is that it is possible to fully participate in proper peace keeping operations - such as Ifor without having to be a member of NATO or NATO-PfP. Democratic Left in fact would have no objection to Irish participation in that operation.
Whether the organisation of European security has been taken over by NATO is still a matter of dispute, as Paul Gillespie rightly points out (The Irish Times, January 25th). The DL position on NATO PfP is quite clear. We see NATO as an non-European military alliance with an agenda way beyond securing borders in Europe, and this is our fundamental objection. No one seriously believes it exists to defend Belgium against attack.
A recent report by Joe Carroll in your newspaper (December 16th) quoted the new chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, as speaking "strongly in favour of NATO extending its operations to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions outside Europe". The general, as one of the authors of PfP, "favoured NATO being able to operate in the Middle East and Africa" and said he would be "very happy" to see Ireland involved. Our position remains that such matters must remain the prerogative of the UN. - Yours, etc.,
Chairman, International Committee, Democratic Left, 69 Middle Abbey Street,
Dublin 1.