HARRY McCAULEY,
Madam, - The Flood tribunal is currently investigating a range of claims that financial inducements may have been offered to various councillors to secure their votes. There is general agreement that, should those claims prove true, a great scandal has occurred and a cloud hangs over the validity of any council decisions influenced by such votes.
Yet at this very moment the US is openly and unashamedly involved in attempts to secure votes on the UN Security Council using a mixture of threats and financial inducements.
Surely the actions of the US constitute a great scandal and such methods of securing Security Council votes must be deplored. Moreover, surely the validity of any UN decisions influenced by such votes must be questioned. - Yours, etc.,
HARRY McCAULEY,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Some Irish politicians are now disingenuously attempting to equate being anti-war with being anti-American. This implies that President Bush's administration has the support of all Americans, which is absurd.
James Aikens, a former US diplomat stationed for years in Iraq and (as ambassador) in Saudi Arabia, speaks for millions of his compatriots when he denounces the war. He has stated that he himself recently heard senior members of the Bush administration saying that "Saudi Arabia could go to hell" when the US has control of Iraq's oil. (BBC World Service, 5.15 a.m., February 26th).
The UN is now being relentlessly exposed as a dream that hasn't come true. It is public knowledge that Bush's men are at present on tour, bribing and threatening certain non-permanent members of the Security Council. Therefore the "second Security Council resolution" engineered to sanction an attack on Iraq can have no moral force, though it will be presented as giving a legal mandate for that attack.
Everyone recognises the world's desperate need for an institution that is universally accepted as the upholder of international law and order, its decisions respected by all its members. But if the richest and most powerful member can control Security Council decisions by openly bribing and threatening its poorest members, the whole edifice falls apart.
The accusation that anti-war people are pro-Saddam is as illogical as arguing that opponents of capital punishment approve of murder. Equally illogical is the taunt, "You lot didn't gather outside Iraqi embassies to protest against Saddam's crimes!" In democratic countries citizens feel that just possibly they can influence events, that protesting is worth the effort. No one in their right mind could imagine that a demo might influence Saddam Hussein. - Yours, etc.,
DERVLA MURPHY,
Lismore,
Co Waterford
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - In recent days the Progressive Democrats have begun to press home their extreme right-wing agenda with public attacks on the 100,000-plus citizens of this State who took part in a peaceful protest against the warmongering of imperialists in the US and British governments.
The Tánaiste began the process by accusing many of those who took part in the recent anti-Iraq war march of being "anti-American". On Monday night the Minister for Justice used his appearance on Questions And Answers to lecture us on the importance of supporting the UN. And now it seems that the Minister for Foreign Affairs apparently believes that to be anti-war on Iraq is to be pro-Saddam Hussein. Ridiculous nonsense from a Minister who should know better!
I believe that the United Nations - and the UN alone - should decide whether or not there is to be a war on Iraq. I only wish that George Bush, Tony Blair and their apparatchiks in this country thought likewise. They manifestly do not. They simply believe that the UN should be asked to support a war that Bush has told us will take place in any case. They believe that UN support is desirable - and is worth bribing other countries, such as Mexico and Chile, to achieve - but that it is not required.
If this Government is really interested in supporting and maintaining the integrity of the UN it will table a motion seeking to prohibit debate on any further resolution on war with Iraq unless those taking part in such a debate - and particularly those proposing such a course - give a cast-iron guarantee that they will be bound by its outcome. Failure to do so should lead to expulsion from the UN.
In the 2002 General Election the PDs secured just 73,628 first-preference votes from the Irish people. If they ever get a first-preference vote that matches the turnout at the recent anti-war march in Dublin they might be in a better position to question the motives of those who took part. - Yours, etc.,
BRENDAN OGLE,
Cornamaddy,
Athlone,
Co Westmeath.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - You have to fear for the Irish Society for International Law. Its PRO, Colm Fahy, propounds (February 25th) that "the preponderance of legal authority is that Resolution 1441 does not permit military action".
Has he even read the unanimously-adopted Resolution 1441? It stipulates that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations". This clearly puts the onus on Iraq to prove it is no longer in material breach.
It demands that Iraq co-operate immediately, unconditionally and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA. If it was doing this, Drs Blix and ElBaradei would be only too delighted to say so. They haven't.
It also reminds us that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
"Continued violations" equals "continued material breach". Other than the Iraqi ambassador, nobody at the UN debate on February 14th denied that "serious consequences" equals "military action".
So how on earth can Mr Fahy pretend that there is no legal basis for military action, unless the UN Security Council, not the law, is an ass? - Yours, etc.,
TONY ALLWRIGHT,
Killiney,
Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Though the intentions of some proponents and supporters of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq may be honourable in their wish to give liberty from an oppressive regime to the Iraqi people and to protect the world from further major terrorist attacks, could they please consider carefully the principle that, as Daniel O'Connell put it: "Human blood is no cement for the temple of freedom". - Yours, etc.,
FREDDIE MURRAY,
Ashbourne,
Co Meath.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - While remembering the war poet Francis Ledwidge, Liam O'Meara (February 25th) appropriately alludes to the anti-war soldier poets - Owen, Sassoon and Brooke. He also acknowledges "the folly of all war". Unilateral or multilateral war remains the wrong way, the worst way. - Yours, etc.,
J.A. BARNWELL,
St Patrick's Road,
Dublin 9.