Madam, - There has been much talk in recent days about the failure of the United Nations. The UN has not failed. Its charter clearly establishes the authority of the Security Council, and most members of this body did not believe Iraq posed a threat to either regional or world security.
Of course, the United States and Britain are not obliged to adhere to the will of the UN, but their insistence on placing the blame for conflict at the door of the UN is deplorable. Undermining the legitimacy of the world's only unified security organisation to justify unilateral military action presents a far greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein ever could. - Yours, etc.,
GARRETH McDAID, Celbridge, Co Kildare.
Madam, - The blame for the illegal and immoral war in Iraq lies squarely with a small cohort of right-wing warmongers in the US, their lap-dog George W. Bush, his lap-dog Tony Blair, and a small numbers of chads on electoral ballots in Florida.
Bush's argument that UN Resolution 1441 is a sufficient basis for war is nonsense. A majority of the permanent members of the Security Council made it explicitly clear in November 2002 that 1441 was an insufficient basis for armed conflict. Even the US ambassador to the UN admitted as much at the time.
The case for war has shifted from weapons of mass destruction, to regime change, to the liberation of the people of Iraq. Oil is cited by some opponents of the war. But surely the real reason is the inability of the US to deal with the tragedy of 9/11 in a coherent and strategic manner.
Given the horrors of that day, it is not difficult to understand why mistakes are being made. But at what cost? The cliché that this war will create hundreds more bin Ladens may well understate the case.
Unless the Palestinian problem is given the same level of attention by the US in the near future, Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilisations between Islam and the West may end up defining the first half of this century. - Yours, etc.,
ALAN MORTON, Penrose Street, Dublin 4.
Madam, - Now that the Government has seemingly agreed to continue allowing logistical support to George Bush's war on Iraq, is it fair to say that we now know what Fianna Fáil means when it calls itself The Republican Party? - Yours, etc.,
COLIN McGOVERN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Madam, - P.D. Goggins's letter of March 18th is long on words but short on everything else. The suggestion that Saddam poses an imminent threat to anyone but himself would in other, less serious, circumstances be funny. His veiled attack on Dr Blix is nothing more than shooting of the bringer of unwanted news.
The resort to the language of the gutter press when referring to France is beneath contempt. The French, Russians and Germans have emerged from this episode with honour intact. They have made it clear that they will not be party to what will be nothing other than a duck shoot. The Iraqi people have no way of defending themselves against America's weapons of mass destruction. No doubt Baghdad will be lit up like a Christmas tree and we will be offered a blow-by-blow American version of the ongoing invasion. Another country conquered and destroyed with hardly an American casualty and only "collateral" damage on the ground.
The suggestion that a government has the absolute right to govern for the full term of its mandate regardless of what it gets up to is infantile, but seems somehow to make sense in the context of the letter.
We on this island, like our neighbour next door, are but bit players in world affairs with little or no power to influence the course of events. We now know that we are bought and paid for by the "American factory in the constituency". We should, however, temper our words and not egg on those who see war as a solution. To assist us in this, we should try to imagine the terror that the children of Baghdad are about to put through. God bless Iraq and her people. They will be to the forefront of my thoughts during the coming dreadful days. - Yours, etc.,
JIM O'SULLIVAN, Rathedmond, Sligo.
Madam, - The Taoiseach offended almost every code in the philosophy textbook in his speech at Washington on March 14th. That Germany and some Arab countries are letting US warplanes use their airports - as he states - should not be justification for their use at Shannon. That the US used Shannon Airport during the Vietnam and Kosovo wars does not lend moral legitimacy for its use against Iraq today.
This is a glaring example of situation ethics over a bowl of shamrock.
Is the Taoiseach content that his sentiments, uttered on the eve of St Patrick's Day, should hold good as a universal law in every international crisis in the future? The end - in this case the overthrow of the hated Iraqi regime - must not justify the means. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN F. FALLON, Boyle, Co Roscommon.
Madam, - Ireland should be proud of its tiny contribution - the use of Shannon Airport and Irish and airspace - to the liberation of the Iraqi people.
And those who think this is a Christian crusade against Muslims should explain how it was that the same Christians bombed other Christians in Serbia to protect Muslims in Kosovo. - Yours, etc.,
TONY ALLWRIGHT, Killiney, Co Dublin.
Madam, - In 1996, when the present Fine Gael leader was the Minister for Trade and Tourism, an AFRI report expressed concern that Ireland was exporting military goods not only to countries with poor human rights records, but also to countries which were redirecting imported military goods from Ireland to such countries. The Opposition in the Dáil duly called on Mr Kenny to establish an interdepartmental committee to vet applications for military export licences more thoroughly and to consider tightening the Control of Exports Order 1996, therefore ensuring that neutrality was not violated.
Mr Kenny refused to do this. In his Dáil response he highlighted the importance of the electronics industry to Ireland's economy and the need for export controls not to impinge on Irish exporters' ability to compete.
In the light of this, how can Mr Kenny credibly object to the Government allowing the US authorities to use Shannon Airport?
Is it not clearly the case with our country's politicians that when in government the country's neutrality is subservient to her economy - and vice versa when in opposition? - Yours, etc.,
ANDREW GREANEY, Castle Avenue, Dublin 3.