BRENDAN BUTLER,
Madam, - On behalf of the Irish NGOPeace Alliance, an organisation of concerned people and 40 peace and solidarity groups, I wish to respond to the speech by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, to the National Committee on American foreign Policy as reported by Conor O'Clery (November 26th).
We find it most disrespectful and contemptuous of the Irish people that the Minister chose to articulate further aspects of Irish foreign policy on Iraq to an American institution rather than to Dáil Éireann - it seems the Minister is more answerable to the National Committee on American Foreign Policy than to the Irish democratic system.
What makes the Minister's speech alarming is his assertion that the UN Security Council would have no other option but to endorse an American-led military assault on Iraq if the Council found that Iraq was in material breach of the UN resolution on disarmament.
Afterwards the Minister refused to come clean in response to the all-important question whether Ireland would support an American-led assault on Iraq without a new UN Resolution. But, by reading between the lines, it seems obvious that Minister Cowen will bring Irish foreign policy into further disrepute by backing up the US and British who want an all-out war on Iraq and regime-change regardless of the consequences to the region.
We have maintained a weekly vigil of a witness to peace outside the Department for Foreign Affairs since September 11th and we feel betrayed by the Minister's lack of commitment to an independent foreign policy especially in relation to the responsibilities we bear in relation to the future of the Iraqi people who have suffered enough from Saddam Hussein's savage rule and UN sanctions without having to face a most terrifying war to be fought on their streets and in their homes.
We, on behalf of the Irish peace movement, will not bear the innocent blood of the Iraqi people on our hands, and if this Government gives carte-blanche to a US-led invasion of Iraq involving the use of Irish airports and Irish airspace in the furtherance of such a war, then we believe they are not representing the vast majority of the Irish people but rather American interests in the Middle East. - Yours, etc.,
BRENDAN BUTLER,
Co-ordinator,
NGO Peace Alliance,
c/o 134 Phibsboro Road,
Dublin 7.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Jack Fairweather's report from the USS Abraham Lincoln (November 26th) makes for very sorry reading. The crew of this behemoth are told that "a good navy day" is achieved by dropping more bombs on target than ever before. The control rooms maps of Iraq are divided into sectors named for American states; "'Texas'," Jack Fairweather informs us, "is dotted with pins marking recent air strikes."
Lieut. Keith Pickle freely admits not knowing what a "material breach" of a UN resolution is, but tells us that being shot at makes you feel "like someone is trying to wage war on you". John Parker has "no idea who Hans Blix is", but if he is the man to call for action, Parker wants some of it.
What does this gung-ho talk tell us? It tells us that America can on- ly understand the world as a projection of itself; that its fighting personnel consider, bizarrely, that they are under attack; that its citizens are either ignorant of the realm of international law, or consider their country to be above it. If any of these young men really thought that they were vulnerable, they might think differently.
Long ago, and in better days, Christopher Hitchens pointed out that the United States combines an insular and isolationist culture, with an interventionist and global posture. What better illustration of this brilliant formulation could we have than the crew of the Lincoln? - Yours, etc.
CONOR McCARTHY,
Cambria,
De Vesci Court,
Dun Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.