Madam, - Many of our commentators are making a similar assumption about the imminent war against Saddam Hussein in the event it does not get the support of the UN Security Council in an 18th resolution. Most recently John Bruton (Opinion, March 11th) has talked of "Tony Blair and George Bush. . . preparing to tear up the United Nations Charter".
The assumption is that America and Britain will have brought down the edifice of the Security Council, if not the UN itself, for the UN will have shown itself unable to hold sway or authority over world events.
This is to put things the wrong way round.
Last November's binding 17th resolution (i.e. Resolution 1441) specifies serious consequences - the accepted euphemism for war - if Saddam does not disarm immediately, unconditionally and completely, which he hasn't. The 18th would give him a final deadline.
If the 18th resolution is defeated and/or vetoed by counties which know, as we all do, that the war is going ahead anyway, it is those voting No that will have done the damage. For they will have voted to not enforce the UN Security Council's own 17 prior resolutions, so demonstrating to all the world that the resolutions are meaningless and toothless. This would be foolhardy in the extreme.
For those who believe in the UN, it is time to demonstrate outside the embassies of France, Germany and Russia before those countries wreck the organisation. - Yours, etc.,
TONY ALLWRIGHT, Killiney, Co Dublin.
Madam, - This year's tourist season is in crisis, even before it gets off the ground. North American bookings have collapsed. One reason the Americans are not coming here is because they elected a President who is hell-bent on having a war.
This factor is beyond our control. Americans are still going to go on vacation, but many will stay on their own continent because of the perceived terrorist threat in Europe.
By allowing American war planes into Shannon, we have lost what was probably our best marketing option.
If such refuelling stops had been refused, Ireland could have been promoted as a neutral island country off the west coast of Europe where there was no threat from terrorists. Allowing refuelling, with the predictable protests that followed, ensured that our neutral status was no longer credible.
The inevitable result of the woeful judgment by the Government now threatens thousands of jobs in our tourist industry and will result in millions of lost euro to the Exchequer. Is there anybody left in politics or in the tourism promotion business with a bit of common sense? - Yours, etc.,
MIKE O'SULLIVAN, Ummeraboy, Knocknagree, Co Cork.
Madam, - I was saddened by Father Seamus Murphy's claim that war against Iraq can be justified (Rite and Reason, February 24th). It certainly flies in the face of Pope John Paul's strenuous efforts to prevent the impending slaughter.
I saw no proof in Father Murphy's article of any threat by Iraq to its neighbours, who are mostly against an invasion by the US, and he certainly provides no proof of Iraqi complicity in the attack on September 11th, 2001.
Human rights abuses in other countries are not addressed by wholesale slaughter of the inhabitants but by diplomatic and economic pressure, sadly lacking in the dealings of the US and Britain with many dictators and corrupt rulers.
It's hard to refrain from concluding that Iraq has been selected as a soft target with tremendous opportunities for the armament and chemical manufacturers. - Yours, etc.,
Mrs MARY STEWART, Ardeskin, Donegal Town.
Madam, - I await a response from the likes of Ruth Dudley Edwards, Kevin Myers or the Tánaiste, Mary Harney, to the stark letter (March 6th) on the evils and terrible consequences of war from former US marine sergeant Bryan Kennedy, who fought in Vietnam.
As an old soldier who served with the UN peace-keeping force in the Congo in 1963/64, I find his letter the most moving cri de coeur against war that I have come across. - Yours, etc.,
PÁDRAIG O SIOCHRÚ, Leopardstown Gardens, Blackrock, Co Dublin.