Sir, - Michael McLoughlin's gratuitously abusive letter (September 27th) is useful in that it encapsulates so many of the fallacies put about by defenders of the "new world order".
Opponents of "Partnership for Peace" (I insist on the quotation marks around such Orwellian phrases) support military intervention in East Timor because it is taking place under the auspices of the UN, which represents us all (when allowed to do so), rather than NATO, which primarily represents the interests of those arms-exporting nations that supported, trained and armed the forces illegally occupying East Timor.
To call "PfP" a "European response" to "the modern world of international relations" is to strain credulity past breaking-point. "PfP" is a Trojan horse built by the US with a view to bypassing temporarily any local little difficulties certain pliant nations might experience on the way to full NATO membership. To refer to the nations of Eastern Europe as "former enemies" is similarly to adopt a perspective entirely consistent with US propaganda but remote from reality - and anyway, Russia has withdrawn from "PfP" (a fact conveniently hushed up by those previously derived so much solace from its membership).
It is not "the fact that certain nations have inconsistencies in their foreign policy" that should deter us from joining a NATO-sponsored grouping, but the fact that these foreign policies are all too consistently geared to the exclusive interests of the wealthiest and most powerful nations. "Meaningful solidarity [with] those who are being ethnically cleansed" should on the contrary impel us to campaign for a strengthened and reformed UN that is no longer hostage to those members with the greatest interest in hindering its efficiency. - Yours, etc.
Raymond Deane, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.