Madam, – Your Editorial (March 21st) suggests that the imperfect and tainted instruments (of the United Nations) are the best we can expect, in the circumstances.
Surely the “ad hoc” response of the international community to this and other international crises suggest that we need a better, more thoughtful, structured and united response, delivered in a manner that meets the needs and circumstances of the 21st century?
I wonder how much longer it will take before we come to accept that the nation state is not the highest form of global organism to which we, as a species, can aspire. Simply put, we need a global federation of some kind which will be able to tackle climate change, genocide, state-sponsored terrorism and natural disasters, like the earthquake in Japan.
Why must we continue to rely on the crude and often quixotic tactics of the western powers? Are we not aware in these circumstances that “the world is one country and mankind are its citizens”?
I believe that it would only take nine or 10 countries acting closely together to move us forward. We should convene an international conference, as a first step, which would look seriously at the problems, and come up with realistic proposals for a “global federation” to replace the dysfunctional United Nations. We could even host an inaugural event in Ireland this autumn, if we set our minds to it. This would certainly take our minds off our own problems. - Yours, etc,
Madam, – The “Libya Model” was meant to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation, rather than force. In 2003, Col Gadafy decided to abandon his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes and pay compensation to the families of the Lockerbie bombing. These actions were seen as efforts by Libya in normalising its ties with the west. However, we may now view the “Libya Model” from a different perspective as being one of a country which abandons its WMD and then is attacked by the west. The same thing happened in Iraq. It could be surmised that the west is following a hidden agenda on these matters. Whether or not, it is unlikely that any other country will abandon it’s WMD and presumably many countries now will be trying to acquire WMD, as a necessary deterrent against Nato aggression. – Yours, etc,