Sir, - Malcolm Byrne of Fianna Fail claims (April 22nd) that PfP "does not represent a gateway into NATO and few, if any, members of FF would favour joining that alliance as it would have serious implications for our ability to maintain our independent position on the world stage." He explains: "FF policy has changed because many of the understandable concerns of members regarding the workings of PfP have been clarified and because of the certainty that by getting involved we are not committing ourselves to a military alliance."
One wonders - clarified by whom? On April 23rd, in the London Independent, David Owen referred to Albania as a "member of NATO's Partnership for Peace". So firmly is PfP linked to NATO - and seen to be so linked by the rest of the world - that even were Ireland to remain outside the NATO alliance, PfP membership would of itself fatally compromise our "independent position".
On April 23rd your Editorial deplored our absence from NATO's Washington Summit and observed with startling naivety that, as a PfP member, "this State would have been in a better position to be informed of - and possibly to influence - decisions that will affect its security and defence interests for years to come." (Hark to an echo of the Skibereen Eagle!) The leader concludes by commenting on "the underdeveloped Irish political debate on security and defence affairs".
Owing to this "underdevelopment", most Irish people are probably not too well informed about "interoperability". This is one of the baits being used to lure Ireland into PfP - a bait some of our army officers find irresistible. Let Alexander Vershbow, the US Ambassador to NATO, explain it: "Allied nations must ensure that their communications and weapons systems are modern and capable enough to operate effectively with those of the US." No wonder America's arms manufacturers (aka "defence" industry) are such fervent advocates of NATO enlargement and PfP.
The US, enthusiastically encouraged by Britain, is eager to have the legality of future NATO operations assessed - as now in the Balkans - on a "case-by-case" basis, this dodging any tiresome Security Council vetos. Last December Lady Symons stated in the House of Lords: "All NATO operations must have a proper basis in international law . . . This need not always be a Security Council resolution. The legal basis in any particular case is bound to depend on the circumstance. We have to judge each case on its merits and act accordingly."
But who are "we"? Evidently NATO's leadership - which is scary. One doesn't need an overheated imagination to visualise NATO being used in the future, globally, to protect US commercial interests and access to resources, behind the smokescreen of "upholding democracy" or "protecting minorities".
A year ago Madeleine Albright foresaw NATO becoming "a force for peace from the Middle East to Central Africa". This prospect disquiets several members of the alliance, but it's hard to argue with the Boss. The illusion that the world's most powerful military alliance could ever become a "force for peace" is grotesque. The manic accumulation of sophisticated weaponry is a thought-stopper, as we see clearly in the Balkans. It engenders the primitive fantasy that the well-armed can always get their way through the use of violence - regardless of the particular historical/emotional/psychological nuances of a conflict. Does Ireland really want to be a PfP supporter of this approach to conflict resolution?
Also, do we want to associate ourselves with an alliance that continues to cherish its nuclear option? NATO's nuclear weapons states are suppressing any public debate on the alliance's future nuclear strategy. In February 1998 William Cohen, the US Defence Secretary, told the Munich Conference on Security Policy: "Any question about this policy undermines our deterrent capability. NATO's nuclear weapons make a unique contribution to Alliance security." (Why, then, denounce India and Pakistan when they, too, feel a need for this "unique" safeguard?).
During the past few years NATO enlargement has been given precedence, by the US, over the nuclear disarmament programme - hence the Duma's mulishness when START II came up for ratification. The deployment of US sub-strategic weapons in Europe is, according to NATO, "political" - a symbol of America's commitment to Europe's "defence". But what if the Russians see them differently and begin to scrape the rust off their own nukes? A disintegrated and demoralised ex-superpower, with an enlarged NATO fostering "interoperability" all along its western border, could well prove more dangerous than the tightly controlled USSR. - Yours, etc., Dervla Murphy,
Lismore, Co Waterford.