TOM WRIGHT,
Madam, - I read Michael D. Higgins's reply (Opinion, October 30th) to my article,"Case for supporting the US is Overwhelming" (October 29th) with great alarm. I would like to clarify a number of important points.
First, Dr Higgins implies that I used or endorsed the phrase "collateral damage". I did not. Like him, I believe that this is shameful language used to con people into believing that war is cost-free. War is never cost-free.
Second, Dr Higgins implicitly criticises the Israeli strike on Iraq's Osariq nuclear reactor in 1982. Does he seriously now believe that this was unjustified? Has 20 years of Saddam Hussein, a man who has wilfully engaged to excess in all human vices save cannibalism, not convinced him otherwise? Does he really believe that international law would have disarmed a nuclear Iraq? In light of the incontestable fact that this action, with no civilian casualties, saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the Gulf War, is it still wrong?
Third, I do not wish in any way to impugn or question Dr Higgins's motives or intentions. I am disappointed that he does not extend the same courtesy to me. I am just as concerned with preventing war and destruction as he is.
The difference is that, faced with two possible outcomes - unilateral or multilateral war - I believe we should push for the least damaging, rather than holding out for no war at all and ending up, by default, with the less favourable option. This is simple strategy. Dr Higgins, by contrast, seems to believe in the politics of Peter Pan: anything is possible if you wish hard enough. History has long since disabused me of any such notion.
Fourth, while I agree that we shouldn't accept war as inevitable, the fact is that only the US can stop it. The UN can influence but not veto American plans. The United States has never accepted the right of the UN to veto its freedom of action. Even Clinton acted unilaterally in Kosovo. You can wish it otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.
Fifth, Dr Higgins should not assume that I am in favour of war. I am deeply worried that action may precipitate Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction.
That is why I am so concerned that if it does happen we should facilitate a large coalition that will bring it to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.
Sixth, it is precisely because I want an effective UN that I favour supporting the United States. Otherwise, the US will disengage, multilateralists will be tremendously damaged, and unilateralism will become the norm. Dr Higgins completely ignores this point.
Finally, although Dr Higgins obviously has nothing but disdain for my arguments, I welcome this debate. For too long we have shied away from an honest discussion of the issues. I hope that this can continue, politely. - Yours, etc.,
TOM WRIGHT, Department of Government, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - In relation to Tom Wright's case for supporting the forthcoming US/UK resolution irrespective of its specific content, I would suggest that a UN basing decisions on an assumption of its own powerlessness undermines its credibility far more starkly than one taking a position that may be ignored by the US.
Is he suggesting that we give unqualified support for unilateralist actions simply because these actions are unilateralist and do not as such require our support? This seems a weak argument. Furthermore, to base a decision on such an important matter on a pragmatic appraisal of our own interest is a rebuke to the nations who put us in this position of minor, but tangible, influence. - Yours, etc.,
DARREN SNOW, Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Tom Wright's piece on the case for backing the US was trite and tacky. His simplistic, self-serving and amoral approach to such an important political and ethical issue was unworthy of The Irish Times. His literary style is appallingly immature.
How, in God's name, did he manage to get published in a broadsheet of allegedly high professional standards?
Please focus on the quality of your opinion pieces. Pot-boilers are a dime a dozen. - Yours, etc.,
KEVIN HEALY, Hampstead Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin 9.