Madam, - That well-known Anti-American ex-president, Jimmy Carter, wrote last weekend that the US was preparing to carry out an attack "almost unprecedented in the history of civilised nations". Sometimes, civilised nations fall into the hands of uncivilised governments. The nation which produced Goethe and Beethoven was once governed by an extreme right-wing psychopath who concocted, just as Bush is now doing, all sorts of lunatic paranoid reasons to justify armed aggression against Czechoslovakia and Poland.
This Bush administration is using September 11th to further its geopolitical strategy which is ultimately designed to serve certain economic and business interests. As a middle-aged paterfamilias I may benefit financially from this war. It may, for example, result in much reduced oil prices or improve the fortunes of my pension fund. But it is an outrage against morality and civilisation. - Yours, etc.,
BRENDAN O'NEILL, Ardeevin Avenue, Lucan, Co Dublin.
... ...
Madam, - Tony Allwright gets another opportunity to get it wrong (March 12th). In his previous letter of February 28th he questioned the future of the Irish Society of International Law and, in particular, my interpretation of Resolution 1441 that it does not constitute a basis for military action in Iraq. He asserts that "serious consequences" is the "accepted euphemism for war". This is an assertion without legal foundation.
Mr Allwright's interpretation does not accurately reflect the position of the majority of states in the Security Council during the debates and travaux preparatoires. Despite his rejection of my position, Mr Allwright subsequently altered his own (an affliction prevalent among the "hawks" in this debate).
If, as he asserted previously, Resolution 1441 (his mystical "17th" resolution) is a basis for military action, why does he now concede that an 18th resolution is required? What's happened to the force of his euphemism? The accurate de facto and de jure position is as I stated it (February 25th). My unchanged position is echoed in a letter from the "Group of 16" leading international lawyers to Tony Blair published in the Guardian last week. Mr Allwright's criticism of John Bruton's position (Opinion, March 11th) is rooted yet again in his ill-informed and consequently inaccurate reading of the obligations imposed by Resolution 1441 and the requirements that must be met before any authorisation of force can be made. - Yours, etc.,
COLM FAHY, BA, LLB, LLM, PRO, Irish Society of International Law, Dalkey, Co Dublin.
... ...
Madam, - Tony Allwright states that "serious consequences" in UN-speak is "the accepted euphemism for war". Actually, the phrase was chosen to avoid the accepted euphemism, which is "all necessary steps". Resolution 1441 - even if the UN were to find Iraq in serious breach of it - does not condemn the nations of the world to look on complacently as hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens of Baghdad are slaughtered. (Even if it did, it would be better to be inconsistent than to abet a crime of this magnitude.)
The American Congress has missed its date with history by delegating responsibility for war to President Bush. The UN, in contrast, did not lock itself into any automatic war scenario and is now fulfilling its historical role with dignity. - Yours, etc.,
Rev JOSEPH O'LEARY, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan.
... ...
Madam, - I learned with some bemusement and a little concern that the US Congress has decided to change the menu of its restaurant, removing any references to France over because of that country's proposal to veto a second UN resolution on Iraq. The restaurant now serves "Freedom Fries" instead of "French Fries".
But is France not prescribing to the "American Dream" by exercising its freedom of choice? - Yours, etc.,
RICHARD MORTON, Oldbridge Way, Lucan, Co Dublin.
... ...
Madam, - In the first half of his presidency, George W. Bush has done more than any other US president in recent history to: escalate world tensions; destabilise global economics; undermine human rights and the principles of international democracy; promote energy consumption and consumerism; further lessen public confidence in US foreign policy; encourage fundamentalism; and in the process regrettably alienate and isolate a people he purports to represent and apparently desperately wishes to protect. And now he weakens the increasingly vulnerable position of his closest ally.
Quite some record for the supposed leader of the civilised Western World! - Yours, etc.,
PETER GAUGHAN, Monkstown, Co Dublin.
... ...
Madam, - The staff and students (signatures attached) of Loreto College, Swords, Co Dublin, call upon our Taoiseach, Mr Bertie Ahern, when he meets President Bush at the White House, to state clearly that the vast majority of Irish people are opposed both to war on Iraq and the use of Shannon Airport for fuelling war planes.
As we at this college oppose the use of bullying in human relationships, so we must be consistent in opposing all forms of violence in solving personal, national and international conflict. - Yours, etc.,
CIARA MATEER (Head Girl), EMMA GRIMES (Deputy Head Girl), Loreto College, Swords, Co Dublin.
... ...
Madam, - What hypocrites we are! All of a sudden we feel the desperate need to help save starving Iraqi children whose plight we have ignored for the past 10 years, despite significant publicity. So why do we suddenly feel for them? Because we have a deep-rooted guilt about the impending war, which America and her so-called "allies" are determined to wage on an already devastated nation.
In a vain effort to justify our silence against war, we let ourselves believe that those poor victims will somehow gain and become liberated through all this madness. Those who survive might. - Yours, etc.,
ANDY O' SULLIVAN, Auckland, New Zealand.