SHANE O'HARA,
Sir, - I wish to respond to John J. Carroll's myopic letter of September 7th). Firstly, the main reason people oppose such a war is that it would gravely threaten the stability of the Middle East as a whole, and thus have frightening consequences for the entire world. The same holds true, of course, if Iraq has or is developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet until this is proven, war cannot be justified.
Saddam Hussein is certainly guilty of disregarding international borders and laws, yet should action be taken without such evidence, the US will be guilty of the same (and not for the first time).
Secondly, it is sadly true that Saddam let his people die due to a lack of medical aid rather than allow unhindered weapons inspection. Yet this bleak fact does not cleanse the rest of the world of their deaths. Rather than impose sanctions on such aid, would it not have been wiser to adopt a boycott of Iraqi oil, the profits from which have undoubtedly allowed Saddam to finance his weapons development? Alas, yet again oil proved a more valuable commodity than human life.
Thirdly, the idea of a "democratic, secular Iraq" is naïve at best. Entire political systems cannot be simply imported.They are often as closely interwoven with the history of a country as a language or a religion. Mr Carroll suggests that the people of Saudi Arabia would view a democratic Iraq as a "beacon of hope". They might, but not as long as their good friend the US continues to find a willing political and economic ally in the Saudi ruling family.
Finally, the idea of a global boom benefiting all the world's citizens, were the West to acquire Iraq's oil supply, is patently ridiculous. Such benefits can come only when the wealthier nations step off the necks of the poorer and allow them to climb out of the economic black holes in which they are mired.
Saddam Hussein is indeed a despicable man who has massacred his own people. Yet he is also a shrewd political animal, having excelled in his role as the most malign influence in the region for years. Once more he is proving successful in this role, helping to polarise the US "war on terror" into an attack on the Arab world, and create schisms in the international community.
I would like to see an end to him, yet I would also like to see an end to the infuriating hypocrisy of US foreign policy. Perhaps a trade-off could be arranged: Saddam goes if Ariel Sharon steps down to be replaced by someone less barbaric and more worthy of leading the Israeli people and what they stand for? I won't hold my breath. - Yours, etc.,
SHANE O'HARA,
Fivemilebourne,
Co Sligo.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - The Americans should be allowed to inspect Iraqi arms. And the Iraqis should be allowed to inspect American arms. India and Pakistan likewise. Everybody should inspect everybody else's arms. At least once a week. Then, maybe, they'll be too busy to use them. - Yours, etc.,
GABRIEL ROSENSTOCK,
Gleann na gCaorach,
Co Átha Cliath