Sir, - In the Civic, Social and Political Education examination in this year's Junior Certificate the following question appeared: "Give two reasons why you think that members of the Irish Army either should or should not be involved in international peace keeping forces such as the PfP (Partnership for Peace)".
The question assumes that PfP is an international peace keeping force. Such a question is biased and inaccurate in its assumptions. PfP is openly acknowledged as being a part of a nuclear-armed NATO and will be used as a peace enforcer rather than as a peacekeeper. This distinction is not semantic but real as one operation necessarily involves the use of force while the other does not.
The question should have asked the student whether he/she agreed or disagreed with Irish involvement in peacekeeping under the auspices of the UN and then in a second part asked the student's opinion on whether or not Ireland should be a part of the PfP.
As a teacher of young adults I am trying to educate them to have an open but critical outlook on developments in our society and I object to this equation of PfP with peacekeeping. Would the PfP advocate in the Department of Education inspectorate please come forward? - Yours, etc.,
Brendan Butler, Pennock Hill, Swords, Co Dublin.